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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, the description discloses that the delete is recoverable ('never hard-deleted'), that the tool refuses and lists matches when a title is ambiguous, and details the write-tier approval flow with from-now-on vs just-once semantics. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone don't provide.

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 tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose, then identification rules, then approval behavior. The approval section is dense but each clause carries necessary operational guidance; nothing is wasted.

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?

Covers purpose, identification, ambiguity handling, and approval semantics. A minor gap is that it doesn't describe what a successful response looks like, but there is no output schema and the outcome is clearly stated.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by marking title as preferred and explaining that ID is used for disambiguation, which helps an agent choose the right parameter in ambiguous situations.

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 opens with 'Archive an objective and its key results', a specific verb and resource. It clarifies this is a safe, recoverable delete, distinguishing it from hard deletes and from sibling tools like delete_key_result.

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?

Provides explicit identification rules: title preferred, ID to disambiguate when multiple matches. It also tells the agent when to invoke it ('Call it on the first clear ask') and how approvals behave. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like delete_key_result, but the scope statement makes the distinction clear.

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