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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: the exact cascading effects on projects, invitations, and subscription billing. It also discloses the required authorization level and the mandatory preview/confirmation protocol.

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 front-loaded with the core action and its consequences, then moves to prerequisites and permissions. It is dense but every sentence carries necessary information, with no filler.

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 organization-level mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the critical missing context: cascade effects, authorization requirements, and the confirmation-token workflow. Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It explains the confirmationToken's origin and required use, but organizationId is left to the obvious parameter name and the requestId semantics remain in the schema.

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 (archive an organization) and goes further by spelling out the cascade: projects archived, pending invitations cancelled, and subscription cancelled at billing period end. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as archive_project and restore_organization.

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 an explicit prerequisite workflow: call preview_operation first with the same tool name and arguments, show the plan to the user, and only call this tool after explicit agreement. It also names the required permission and owner role, leaving little ambiguity about when and how to invoke it.

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