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

Well beyond the annotations, which only declare destructive/idempotent/not-read-only: the description explains what actually changes (stops earning stamps) and what survives (cards in progress stay visible, ready rewards remain redeemable). The non-reversibility ('can't be published again') and the draft exclusion are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 the core action, then effects, then restrictions. Every clause carries decision-relevant information and none is redundant with the title.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers consequences, preconditions and irreversibility thoroughly. It stops short of saying what the call returns (e.g., the archived program object), which is the only remaining ambiguity, and a minor one.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('From list_programs'), the schema already carries the meaning and the description adds nothing about program_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Archives an active program, as Archive in the app') and pins the target state to 'active', so an agent knows exactly what the call does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearest sibling (update_program), but no sibling archives or deletes programs, so confusion risk is low.

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?

It gives a clear precondition (the program must be active) and an explicit exclusion ('Drafts can't be archived'), plus the cut-off rule that an archived program can't be republished. The only gap is that it names an in-app action rather than a sibling tool as the alternative for drafts, so the agent gets no tool-level routing.

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