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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the operation is reversible and the restore path is archived: false, which contrasts with the sibling delete that is not reversible. That is useful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action stated first and the sibling contrast immediately after. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple two-parameter toggle the description covers the action, the reverse action, and the main alternative; only edge behavior (invalid/already-archived id) is unaddressed, which is minor at this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it explains the boolean semantics ('bring it back with archived: false', implying default true archives). prediction_id has no added explanation beyond its uuid format. With two parameters and only one clarified, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 clear action on a specific resource (archiving a virality prediction) using the metaphorical 'put a prediction away', and explicitly distinguishes itself from the irreversible delete_virality_prediction. It is understandable, but the verb is colloquial rather than the literal 'archive', so it lands just short of a maximally crisp verb+resource statement.

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 real routing guidance: use this to hide a prediction reversibly, and use delete_virality_prediction when permanence is intended. It also tells the agent how to reverse the operation (archived: false). It stops short of stating when one would archive (e.g., hiding from listings) or any preconditions on the prediction's state.

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