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

Goes well beyond the idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations: it specifies exactly what is hidden (app lists and studies), what is untouched (runs, artifacts, spend), that direct links still resolve, and that 'archived false' restores the object. That is the precise reversibility and blast-radius information an agent needs before mutating state.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by effects and the use case. Every clause carries information; only the final return-value list is slightly dense, though it is justified since there is no output schema.

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 two-parameter boolean toggle this is complete: ownership requirement, mutation semantics, reversibility, side effects, and return fields (simulation_id, archived, archived_at, app_url) are all covered, compensating for the absent output schema and matching the idempotent annotation.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description's restatement of 'archived false restores it' largely duplicates the schema's 'true archives, false unarchives.' The ownership qualifier on simulation_id adds mild meaning, but the schema does the heavy lifting 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?

States a specific verb (archive/unarchive) and resource (a simulation you own), and immediately bounds scope with an ownership constraint. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from deletion tools like mcg_delete_study by noting archived items still exist and that drafts 'cannot be deleted once quoted,' so an agent can tell what this tool is and is not.

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 concrete use case — clearing drafts that never ran — and explains the constraint that drives it (cannot be deleted once quoted), which is a real when-to-use signal. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly (e.g., why not mcg_delete_study), leaving that inference to the agent.

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