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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces and extends this by explaining the exact destructive behavior: safe-archive only, fully reversible, never hard-deletes. It also discloses the write-tier approval workflow and tells agents not to re-ask in chat after the approval card, adding valuable operational context.

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-loads the core action and consequence, then adds usage triggers, prerequisite routing, and permission behavior in compact, scannable sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect, reversibility, when to call, how to get the required id, and approval behavior. It does not describe the result or return shape of the call, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful operational semantics by routing agents to list_features to obtain feature_id and by framing the restore parameter as 'un-retire' of a previously archived feature, which maps directly to the restore boolean.

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?

Clearly identifies a mutating action on a feature resource: archive it to stop showing to readers/agents, or restore a previously retired one. The 'Safe-archive ONLY — never hard-deletes' clause distinguishes it from delete-type siblings and clarifies its reversible nature.

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 triggers ('no longer accurate', 'was replaced', user says remove/retire/un-retire) and instructs the agent to call list_features first to get feature_id. It does not explicitly state when to prefer sibling tools like update_feature_status over this one, so exclusion guidance is missing.

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