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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known; the description adds value by clarifying the archiving behavior: the metric is moved to an archive, remains visible in list_archive, and can be restored. This nuance—recoverable, not deleted—goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction found.

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 entire description is one tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then immediately explains the non-permanent consequence. Every phrase earns its place—no filler, no repetition of title or schema.

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 one-parameter tool with an existing output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the key behavior an agent needs: what archiving does, how it can be seen again, and how it can be undone. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 sole id parameter has a helpful schema description naming its source (list_calculated_metrics). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level details beyond referencing 'by ID', so the baseline 3 applies—schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific action (archive) and resource (calculated metric) plus the ID identifier, and immediately clarifies the semantics by contrasting with permanent deletion. It also references list_archive and restore_from_archive, making it easy to distinguish from delete/update operations even among many archive_* siblings.

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 on the tool's effect—items are recoverable and visible in list_archive—which helps an agent decide between archiving and deletion. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or compare to other archive tools, but for this single-resource action the guidance is sufficient.

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