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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is supplied. The description adds value annotations cannot: nothing is deleted, the change is reversible via restore_agent, and a human-approval gate exists. There is a mild tension between 'nothing is deleted' and destructiveHint=true, but it reads as clarification of blast radius rather than a contradiction.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the state change and reversibility front-loaded, followed by the confirmation workflow. 'Call without approved to see what happens' is slightly hand-wavy but does not waste space.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the important facts (reversible, approval-gated) are present. However, 'see what happens' defers rather than explains what an unapproved call returns, and there is no mention of preconditions such as agents currently deployed or already archived.

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 50%: the 'approved' parameter is already documented in the schema with the same wording used in the description, so the description adds little there. It does add meaning by describing the two-phase call pattern (omit, then set true), but agent_id is left entirely 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move an agent to Archived') plus the target state, and anchors it to a familiar analog ('like the dashboard's Archive'). It also names the inverse tool, restore_agent, so an agent can distinguish archive from restore without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete sequencing guidance: call without 'approved' first, and pass approved: true only after the person confirms. That is an explicit when/when-not rule, though it does not cover edge cases such as archiving an already-archived agent or agents in a published state.

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