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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds valuable behavioral context: reports using the archived theme fall back to the default, and the theme is recoverable via restore_from_archive. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the real-world impact of the operation.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the consequence, and the recoverability. The most important information (what it does) is front-loaded, and the contrast with deletion is concise and clear.

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 a clear schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the action, the side effect on reports, and the recovery path. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the return value or whether the operation is idempotent, but the output schema likely covers the return, and the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% — the single parameter 'id' is already described as 'Theme ID to archive (from list_themes)'. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a theme by ID'), the resource (theme), and the effect (reports using it fall back to the default). It also distinguishes archiving from deletion, which is a key semantic distinction from sibling tools like delete_* or update_theme.

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 when to use this tool: when you want to archive a theme rather than permanently delete it. It explicitly contrasts with deletion ('not away') and names the related tools list_archive and restore_from_archive, which helps an agent understand the archive lifecycle. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., use delete_* for permanent removal) or mention prerequisites like the theme not being in use.

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