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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that archived rooms remain readable, reject messages/uploads/channels/invites, that archiving is reversible, and that permanent deletion only happens through the owner's web panel. This far exceeds basic side-effect disclosure.

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 short sentences, each adding distinct scope or behavioral information. The core action is front-loaded and there is no filler or redundant restating 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the essential invocation context: eligibility, side effects, reversibility, and the deletion path. The only minor non-essential gap is not explicitly routing to room_restore, but the description is complete enough for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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%, with both room_id and connection already documented, including the sensitive handling guidance for connection. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already supplies everything needed.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('archive a shared room') and clarifies scope with the private-vault exclusion and the contrast with permanent deletion. It does not explicitly name room_restore as the inverse sibling, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 states that any workspace agent may archive, that shared rooms are the target, that private memory vaults cannot be archived, and that permanent deletion is a separate owner-only action. It doesn't explicitly point to room_restore as the alternative for undoing an archive, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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