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

Even though destructiveHint=true already warns of mutation, the description goes well beyond annotations: it specifies the activity is soft-archived to jd_content.archived_activities, removed from the live plan, recoverable, and never hard-deleted. It also discloses write-tier approval mechanics. This is rich behavioral disclosure with no contradiction to annotations.

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?

The description is tightly written: two sentences establish the core behavior and recoverability, and the bracketed note adds necessary approval-guidance without padding. Every sentence earns its place and the most important semantic content is front-loaded.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the definition covers the key facts an agent needs: what gets archived, where, the live-plan effect, recoverability, and the approval flow. It does not describe the success response, but that is a minor gap given the strong parameter schemas and behavioral detail.

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 each parameter already carries a meaningful description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retire ONE activity from an agent's plan.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's scope (one activity, soft-archive) and its core effect (removed from live plan, agent stops running it), which differentiates it from siblings like update_agent_activity, restore_agent_activity, and trigger_agent_activity.

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?

The description gives clear operational context: call it on the first clear ask, treat the card as approval, and do not re-ask in chat. It also clarifies the destructive behavior is recoverable. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as update_agent_activity or restore_agent_activity, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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