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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real substance beyond them: the concrete idempotency mechanism ('exact request retries recover the original result'), the effect boundary (retains immutable captures and a revision tombstone, no provider call or remote unlink), and the required scope 'tickets:write'. That is the auth and side-effect context an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then effects, retry semantics, and required scope. No filler and every clause carries an operational fact.

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 mutation with no output schema, it covers effect scope, idempotency, and authorization. It stops short of stating what the caller gets back (e.g., a tombstone/revision reference) or what error occurs on a revision mismatch, which an agent handling conflicts would want.

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 carry the burden, and it only partially does: 'exact revision' explains expected_revision as a concurrency token and 'exact request retries' implies request_id is an idempotency key, but ticket_id and the provider enum are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Archive an owned provider field link'), and the qualifier 'using its exact revision' pins the exact operation. This is clearly separable from the many other archive siblings (ticket_archive, archive_saved_view, ticket_label_archive) because the resource is named precisely.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb ('Archive'), and it clarifies scope with 'no provider call or remote unlink', but it never states when to choose this over link_ticket_provider_fields or the ticket-level archive tools, nor what prerequisites state the link must be in.

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