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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description earns credit by clarifying that despite being a mutation it 'Never deletes content', that it is 'Staged as a proposal under the same review/publication policy', and that it returns the proposal plus reference warnings. It does not cover permission requirements or what happens if the document is referenced elsewhere beyond mentioning warnings.

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 core action and its consequences, then layers the guardrails and return behavior; every sentence carries information. Capitalized emphasis ('COMPLETE') and slightly dense phrasing cost a little polish but not clarity.

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 complex 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers semantics, side effects, and staging policy well, but leaves the entire parameter contract and authority/permission model unexplained. An agent can decide whether to call it but not how to construct the call.

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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters (7 required), and the description explains none of them: rationale, evidence, base_revision, contract_version, idempotency_key and result_offset are all left opaque. Only 'COMPLETE document' faintly implies document_id must name a whole document rather than a fragment, which is far too little to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Archive a COMPLETE document') and immediately defines the resulting state change: leaves active documents, moves to Archives, no longer loaded or counted by default. It also distinguishes the operation from a near-miss ('does not lighten a document: correct its text for that'), so an agent can tell what this tool does and does not do without checking siblings.

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 a clear triggering condition ('has become obsolete') and an explicit exclusion with a redirect ('does not lighten a document: correct its text for that'). It stops short of naming a concrete sibling tool for the alternative action or for reversing the operation (restore_document exists but is not referenced).

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