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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the concrete destructive side effect that matters most here: unsent outreach messages are cancelled. It stops short of stating whether archiving is reversible, which is notable given an unarchiveCustomer sibling exists.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the side effect stated immediately after the action. The only waste is the verbatim repetition of the title 'Archive Customer' as a heading before the actual sentence.

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 explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Purpose plus side effect plus the rich structured fields make this largely complete; the missing piece is the archive/delete/reverse boundary against the many customer siblings.

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 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the identifier (e.g. where to obtain it or whether it accepts the numeric id only).

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) and resource (customer) plus a concrete side effect (cancels unsent outreach messages), which clearly separates it from a plain delete. It never names the relevant siblings (deleteCustomer, unarchiveCustomer), so the agent must infer the boundary between archiving and deleting.

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?

No guidance on when to archive versus deleteCustomer or when to use the sibling unarchiveCustomer to reverse it. The description only asserts what the tool does, leaving tool selection to inference from the names.

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