Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare a destructive, non-idempotent, non-read-only mutation; the description adds substantial context beyond that: dry run returns would_archive plus a sample and changes nothing, archives are recoverable from an Archived view, and archived posts drop out of calendar and search unless a status filter requests them. It stops short of stating permissions/auth requirements or what happens to already-archived ids.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the action and the dry-run default, then layers constraints and side effects in a logical order with no filler. It is a dense single block and slightly long, but each clause carries distinct operational information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive bulk mutation with an output schema, the description covers the safety model (dry run first), selection rules, exclusions, reversibility, and downstream visibility effects. Nothing needed to invoke it safely is missing; return shape is properly left to the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning the schema only implies, notably that only_status: "draft" combined with post_ids skips anything approved or scheduled since, and that criteria and post_ids are mutually exclusive. The limit/oldest-first behavior is left to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Archives many posts in one call") and immediately scopes the two selection modes (post_ids up to 50, or criteria for stale drafts). It is clearly distinguishable from delete_post and update_post by its explicit "not a delete" framing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States the dry-run default and the exact switch (dry_run: false) to commit, explains when criteria selection applies (stale drafts) versus explicit ids, and names exclusion conditions (published posts and in-flight publishing are never archived). The only implicit alternative is delete_post, which the reversibility note effectively addresses.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.