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

The description directly contradicts the annotations. It states 'This ARCHIVES rather than destroys' and 'it can be restored,' while the annotations include destructiveHint=true. This is a serious inconsistency that undermines trust in the tool's behavior. Even though the description adds useful context about error handling and reversibility, the contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the primary action. It includes all critical caveats (archival vs destruction, 409 refusal, idempotence, alternative) with zero wasted words. The structure is ideal.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, reversibility, error behavior, and the alternative. It lacks details on permissions or return values, but those are not essential given the tool's simplicity. The annotation contradiction is the primary missing element, but that is already accounted for in behavioral transparency. Overall, the description is quite complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explicitly explain channel_id beyond what the parameter name implies. The tool's action makes it obvious that channel_id identifies the channel to archive, but no additional constraints, formats, or edge cases are mentioned. This is a minor but noticeable gap.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Take a channel off the air and out of every listing.' It uses a specific verb ('archive') with a resource ('channel') and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool delete_asset, which removes individual videos instead. This is a precise purpose 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?

The description explicitly names an alternative (delete_asset) and positions archive_channel as the reversible way to take a channel down. It also provides a concrete precondition/error condition: refuses with a 409 while transcodes are running. This offers clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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