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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it names exactly what is destroyed (tracking of all queries, list visibility), states it is reversible via restore_project, and discloses the mandatory preview/confirmation gate. This is rich behavioral context beyond the safety flags.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then consequence, then the required workflow across two dense sentences with no filler. A small number of words do double duty (the confirmation flow), and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 no explanation, and the description covers purpose, blast radius, reversibility, and the mandatory confirmation sequence. The only shortfall is that two schema parameters (requestId especially) receive no coverage at 0% schema description coverage.

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 carries the load. It thoroughly explains confirmationToken — where it comes from and how to obtain it — which is the highest-risk parameter. projectId and organizationId are self-evident by name, though requestId is not addressed at all, leaving one minor gap at 0% schema coverage.

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 and resource (archive a project) and immediately describes the concrete consequence: tracked queries stop being checked and the project disappears from the list. It also names the inverse sibling, restore_project, making the direction of the operation unambiguous against the many other project-mutating tools.

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 an explicit prerequisite workflow: call preview_operation with tool "archive_project" and these arguments, show the returned plan to the user, then call only after explicit user agreement. It also contrasts with restore_project and specifies a required confirmationToken, leaving nothing to inference.

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