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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the preview-token gate, token staleness behavior, and that existing records are retained by archiving. It does not say whether an archive can be undone or what errors surface on token rejection, which keeps it below a 5.

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 critical rule is front-loaded, but the text wastes space on a redundant 'Requires confirmation' after already describing the confirmation flow, and the 'Prepare archiving an exact client, retaining its existing records' sentence is awkwardly worded and partially duplicates the first. Four sentences where two and a half would carry the same information.

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 destructive, non-read-only mutation with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation prerequisite and effect on existing records but says nothing about what a successful call returns, what state the client ends up in, whether the archive is reversible, or permission requirements. Adequate to invoke, incomplete to trust.

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?

The single parameter is a confirmation_token whose schema already describes its provenance; the description adds the non-schema semantics that the token must come from this operation's own preview and that it expires or invalidates when the underlying record changes. It also clarifies that no other input is accepted ('Accepts its confirmation_token only'), which prevents an agent from inventing client identifiers.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (apply the exact change) tied to the named sibling preview_archive_client, so the commit-vs-preview distinction is recoverable. However, the later sentence 'Prepare archiving an exact client' re-frames the tool as preparatory and muddies whether it commits or merely stages, which undercuts an otherwise clear statement.

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 states the prerequisite (only after preview_archive_client and after the user confirms the preview) and the failure condition that routes back to the alternative ('changed or expired records require a new preview'). An agent knows exactly when to call this and when to re-call the preview instead.

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