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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not the only source of behavioral context. It adds valuable detail beyond that: archiving is reversible, the automation appears in list_archive, and restoring it reschedules deliveries. No contradiction with the 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, front-loaded with the action and consequence. The phrase 'not away' earns its place by preventing a deletion misread, and naming list_archive/restore_from_archive provides concrete navigation in the same breath.

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 two-parameter operation with an output schema and destructive annotations, the description covers the essential lifecycle: what archiving does, where it goes, and how to reverse it. The only meaningful gap is the unaddressed distinction from pause_automation, which was already scored under usage guidelines.

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 both required parameters (id, parent_id) already have descriptive schema entries referencing list_automations, list_reports, and list_clients. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics, so the schema baseline 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Archive an automation,' and immediately states the key effect: stopping scheduled deliveries. It then distinguishes archiving from deletion by naming the archive lifecycle ('list_archive shows it' and 'restore_from_archive brings it back'), which separates it from sibling operations like archive_asset or delete actions.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when an automation should stop delivering but be retained and restorable. However, it never compares it to the sibling pause_automation, which likely also stops scheduled deliveries, so the guidance 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.