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

Goes well past the annotations: discloses that archived templates stay readable, cannot be edited or rendered until unarchived, that already-rendered emails still send, and that archiving frees plan capacity. It also names the exact failure modes (templates_limit with details.limit/plan, name_taken, not_found) and the idempotent no-op response (changed: false).

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its inverse in the first sentence, then ordered by consequence (readability, rendering, cap, errors, return value). Dense but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information; it runs long as a single paragraph, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description still covers side effects, capacity accounting, error codes, and the return shape ('Returns the template with its state, and changed: false'). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters; the description still adds meaning by spelling out the false/unarchive direction and the state no-op behavior. The workspace-scoping of templateId ('not in this workspace ... is not_found') adds lookup semantics beyond the schema's pattern.

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 and resource ('Archives an email template') and immediately covers the inverse operation ('or unarchives it with archived: false'), so the tool's scope is unambiguous. It also distinguishes the archived state from the deleted state ('kept and can still be read' vs 'is deleted, is not_found'), separating it from lnkdrp_delete_email_template and lnkdrp_restore_email_template without naming them.

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?

Gives a clear trigger for archiving ('not counted toward the workspace's cap ... so archiving one makes room') and for unarchiving, plus the precondition that unarchiving fails at the cap. It does not explicitly route the agent to delete/restore alternatives by name, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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