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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses reversibility (data survives and returns), the two-step confirmation protocol, the exact status string 'confirmation_required', and the action_id/plan_token handoff to confirm_action. The destructiveHint=true annotation is reconciled by explaining that the operation is reversible rather than data-destroying, which is useful nuance rather than a contradiction.

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-loaded with the action, then the reversibility guarantee, then the exclusion, then a labeled CONFIRMATION block. Every sentence adds a distinct fact; nothing is redundant.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, the reversibility, the confirmation flow, and the return status. An agent has everything needed to call it and to know what happens next.

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 parameter burden. It implies the archive/unarchive direction but never explains that the 'archived' boolean is the toggle, nor what project_id and assignment_id must reference. Partial compensation 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 and resource ('Move an assignment to the archive, or bring it back') and immediately scopes it against the nearest confusion point, deletion. An agent can distinguish this from erp_update_assignment or a delete tool without opening any schema.

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 clear when-to-use (hide from board while preserving comments, files, history) and an explicit when-not ('Deleting an assignment is deliberately not available here; that stays in the cabinet'). It stops short of naming the sibling that performs deletion, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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