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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description enriches this with concrete side effects: the deck leaves the study queue, due counts are affected, start_study_session finds nothing, subdecks are archived with it, and cards can still be added by name. It also confirms reversibility and that no confirmation is needed because nothing is deleted.

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?

Four sentences deliver all essential facts in a natural order: action and intent, non-destructive effects, reversal, subdeck behavior, and post-archive addability. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description fully covers why, what happens, what doesn't happen, how to reverse, and edge behaviors (subdecks and adding cards) for a one-parameter mutation. Given the annotations and output schema, no critical information an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With a single parameter whose schema description is 100% covered ('Deck name.'), the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description's added 'by name' detail is minor and doesn't materially extend the semantic of the deck parameter.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Archive a deck') and immediately scopes it to decks the user is done with, e.g. after passing an exam. It distinguishes the operation from sibling unarchive_deck by explicitly saying 'unarchive_deck reverses it' and from destructive deletion by stating 'Nothing is deleted.'

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance ('a deck the user is done with (an exam passed)') and points to the alternative unarchive_deck as the reversal path. It doesn't explicitly contrast with delete_deck or state when archiving is inappropriate, so it stops just short of full when-not coverage.

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