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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds high-value context beyond them: nothing is deleted, no confirmation is needed, subdecks are affected, and cards can still be added by name. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail an agent needs.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with zero waste; each adds a distinct, useful fact (when to use, what happens, reversibility/confirmation) without redundancy.

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 single-param tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers the state transition, side effects, reversibility, and confirmation expectations, leaving no ambiguity about calling it correctly.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'deck' parameter including its full-name format and the list_decks pointer. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (archive) and resource (deck), and precisely describes the state transition: deck leaves the study queue and due counts while cards and history are preserved. This clearly distinguishes it from delete_deck and from unarchive_deck.

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?

Explicitly gives the when-to-use condition ('user is done with a deck (an exam passed) but wants to keep it'), names the reverse tool (unarchive_deck), and even notes a consequent behavior (start_study_session finds nothing). Nothing is left to inference.

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