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

The annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral nuance by stating the item goes to the archive and can be listed/restored, making it clear the action is not permanent deletion. It also references sibling tools that are part of the archive lifecycle. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict the tool's effects.

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 the key information front-loaded. Every word is functional: it states the operation, the target, the ID requirement, and the reversible nature. No fluff.

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 tool with only one input parameter, an output schema, and annotations already covering mutability, the description is complete. It covers what happens (archived), how to undo it, and how to view archived items, leaving no important gaps for an agent to call it safely.

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?

The schema already fully covers the single parameter 'id' with a description and provenance ('from list_calculated_metrics'), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Per baseline for high schema coverage, this is a 3.

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 ('Archive'), a specific resource ('calculated metric'), and the mechanism ('by ID'), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes the operation from permanent deletion by noting it's not destroyed, which is useful context. This clearly separates it from sibling archive_* tools that target different resource 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 gives clear context that archiving is reversible and points to list_archive and restore_from_archive as related operations, but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over other archive_* tools or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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