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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by clarifying that archiving is reversible ('not away') and that the operation cascades to widget rows. This is valuable given destructiveHint=true, as it reassures the agent about recoverability.

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 long and front-loads the core action, then adds the most important behavioral nuance and relevant sibling tools. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 documented input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the key decision factors: what is affected, that it is recoverable, and how to view or reverse it. Nothing essential 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 coverage is 100% with one parameter, and the schema already documents 'id' as 'Asset ID to archive (from list_assets).' The description does not add new parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Archive a saved section and its widget rows.' It also clarifies the scope of the operation beyond the title by noting widget rows are included, which helps distinguish it from other archive_* tools targeting different entity types.

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 clear context by explaining what happens after archiving and explicitly names the relevant companion tools: 'list_archive shows it and restore_from_archive brings it back.' It lacks an explicit exclusion statement ('use this instead of delete...'), but the lifecycle context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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