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

Despite destructiveHint=true, the description usefully discloses the cascade to reports, exports and automations, and clarifies the client is not permanently deleted because list_archive and restore_from_archive exist. This adds real behavioral context beyond 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-load the action and scope, then add the key recovery caveat. No filler or redundant content.

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 an output schema and adequate annotations, the description covers the operation's scope, side effects and reversibility, which is all an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 id parameter already says 'Client ID to archive (from list_clients)'. The description adds only the 'by ID' framing, so it does not provide extra parameter semantics beyond the 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?

States a specific verb ('Archive'), resource ('client'), key parameter ('by ID'), and scope ('with its reports, exports and automations'). This differentiates it from sibling archive_report/archive_export/archive_automation and from archive_clients by indicating a single-client, cascading operation.

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?

Provides clear selection context: use for archiving a single client and its dependent objects, and clarifies the operation is recoverable via list_archive/restore_from_archive. It does not explicitly contrast with archive_clients or say when not to use it, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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