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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'repeating the call... leaves the same result' largely restates the idempotency hint. It does add genuine value with 'Notes are archived, not deleted', which softens the destructive profile by indicating reversibility, but it omits whether a restore path exists, what permissions are needed, and what happens to already-archived notes.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with scope and effect, with no filler. The idempotency sentence duplicates an annotation rather than adding information, which is the only wasted line.

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?

Good on the essentials: it says what gets affected and that a count is returned, which covers the missing output schema. However, for a nested two-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, it leaves cardId and base_note_id entirely unexplained and gives no recovery or permission context.

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 0% and the schema is nested, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only conveys the entity_type values (company/contact/deal); it says nothing about the required cardId or the optional base_note_id, which is the least self-explanatory field in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (archives) plus the exact resource scope (all active notes on a company, or on one of its contacts or deals), and notes that it returns a count. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like createCompanyNote and listCompanyNotes without opening any schema.

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 scope sentence implies when to reach for this tool (bulk archiving of a company's notes or a related contact/deal), but it never names alternatives such as createCompanyNote or listCompanyNotes, nor does it state any when-not conditions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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