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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral nuance: archiving affects widget rows and is recoverable via restore_from_archive. This clearly explains the 'soft delete' nature and what the operation does beyond the raw destructive hint. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler. The core action and target are front-loaded, and the recovery mechanism is stated efficiently. Every phrase 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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential context: what gets archived, that it is recoverable, and where to find it afterward. No critical information for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides ('Asset ID to archive (from list_assets)'). The baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the parameter documentation 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 uses a specific verb 'archive' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a saved section and its widget rows.' It also clarifies the semantic distinction from deletion with 'not away,' which helps differentiate from delete_* siblings. This is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 provides lifecycle context by mentioning list_archive and restore_from_archive, implying this tool is for reversible archiving. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over related tools like delete_* or when not to use it, leaving the usage decision partially inferred.

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