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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable layer: the invoice remains viewable and financial documents are never permanently deleted, which prevents an agent from fearing data loss. This supplements the annotation profile usefully.

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?

A single sentence that defines scope, action, and consequences with zero fluff. The key constraints are front-loaded ('Archive, remove from active lists, or soft-delete') followed by the essential caveat.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover the mutation safety profile, this description is sufficient. It doesn't state preconditions like 'invoice must exist', but that's largely inferable and the focus on soft-delete plus non-destructive semantics covers the main agent concern.

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 schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra param-level meaning, but that's acceptable because the schema carries the load; baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 uses specific verbs ('Archive, remove from active lists, or soft-delete'), identifies the target resource ('a clearly identified invoice'), and names the ownership constraint ('owned by the connected workspace'). This distinguishes it from siblings like unarchive_invoice and create_invoice.

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 implies the tool is for invoices that should no longer appear in active lists and clarifies that financial documents are never permanently deleted. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with unarchive_invoice, the context is clear enough for an agent to choose appropriately.

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