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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the automation is stopped, moved to archive, remains visible via list_archive, and can be restored with rescheduling. This clarifies the reversible nature of the operation and is not available from annotations alone.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action and effect are front-loaded first, followed by the key recovery information.

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?

The description, combined with fully documented parameters and an output schema, gives an agent everything needed to understand the operation, its consequences, and how to reverse it. It also orients the tool within the archive/restore lifecycle.

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%, so the two parameters (id and parent_id) are already well documented with their source lists. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, which matches the baseline score of 3 for a fully covered schema.

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 and resource: "Archive an automation" and immediately states the key effect, "stopping its scheduled deliveries." It also distinguishes this from destruction by clarifying "it goes to the archive, not away" and naming list_archive and restore_from_archive.

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 usage context: use archive to stop scheduled deliveries while preserving the automation for later restoration. It names the relevant recovery tools but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling pause_automation or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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