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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that nothing is deleted, all data is retained, the action is reversible via restore-document, and that an already-archived document is a precondition failure. This reconciliation of 'destructive' annotation with a reversible operation is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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-loaded single-sentence definition, then compact bulleted triggers, then a short behavioral clause. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter state-change tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description supplies preconditions, alternatives, reversibility, and data-retention behavior. Nothing material for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema description already explains what the UUID is and points to list-documents for discovery. The body text adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (archives) and resource (document) plus the observable effect (hiding it from the account's default document lists), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like move-document-to-done-stage and restore-document without opening a 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?

Explicitly enumerates when to use it ('no longer actively worked with', 'user asks to archive, hide, or clean up'), names the inverse operation (restore-document), and states the precondition that the document must not already be archived.

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