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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds that this is a 'soft delete' and that 'historical invoice snapshots and links remain stable', which is valuable context beyond the raw annotation. It does not contradict annotations; in fact, it clarifies the nature of the destructive action.

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 two sentences, front-loads the key action and condition (explicit confirmation), and uses concise language. Every word serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 operation with an output schema (present) and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavior: when to use (after confirmation) and what happens (soft delete). Minor gaps like potential side effects on linked invoices are addressed by 'links remain stable', so it is largely complete.

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 schema has 100% coverage for parameters, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds a slight nuance by implying that 'confirmed' is used for explicit confirmation, but that is already in the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding significant new meaning.

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 clearly states the action (archive) and the resource (saved client), and adds the crucial qualifier that it is a 'soft delete' with stable historical data. This distinguishes it from a hard delete, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from archive_invoice, but the resource is clear.

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 explicitly states that it should be used only after explicit confirmation, and that it is a soft delete, which implies a non-destructive context. It doesn't mention alternatives like update_client for reversible changes, but the confirmation requirement is a clear usage condition.

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