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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful context with 'Recoverably,' clarifying that the archive is reversible, but it does not explain recovery behavior, version requirements, or idempotency-key handling.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity contributes to under-specification elsewhere rather than being fully appropriate for a three-parameter mutation tool.

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 mutation with three required parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain versioning, idempotency, or what recoverable archiving entails.

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% for three required parameters. The description only indirectly hints at the draft being archived and provides no meaning for 'version' or 'idempotency_key,' leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource: archiving a draft. It also adds scope with 'current draft,' but it does not distinguish this from sibling draft operations such as update_draft or delete_template.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The phrase 'your current draft' implies context, but the agent must infer the selection conditions.

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