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

Despite the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description adds valuable context by stating 'They leave the inbox but are not erased', clarifying that the operation is not permanent deletion. This goes beyond the annotation's simple destructiveness flag and gives the agent a clearer model of the tool's side effects.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Archive several notifications by ID in one call') and the clarifying behavior is added without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter batch operation with an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains the batch nature, the input method, and the non-destructive outcome. Minor gaps like partial failures or id validation are not addressed, but they are not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for the 'ids' parameter ('Notification IDs to archive (from list_notifications)'). The description adds 'by ID' but no new constraints, formatting, or behavioral detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 action (archive), resource (notifications), and method (by ID in one call). It also clarifies that the notifications leave the inbox but are not erased, which distinguishes it from deletion tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the singular sibling archive_notification, though 'several' and 'in one call' imply batch usage.

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 implies batch use ('several notifications by ID in one call') but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like archive_notification (singular) or clear_read_notifications. No exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, leaving the selection decision somewhat to inference.

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