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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful nuance: it clarifies that destruction is actually an archive, not a permanent delete, and it discloses exactly what gets archived (reports, exports, automations) and how to reverse it. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey and does not contradict them.

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 tight sentences front-load the primary action and scope, then add the key distinction from permanent deletion. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, so every sentence earns its place.

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 annotative safety info, the description covers the critical operational details: what happens to the client's related resources and that the action is reversible. Nothing essential is missing for an agent 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 coverage is 100%, and the id parameter is already well documented in the schema as 'Client ID to archive (from list_clients)'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Archive a client by ID') and the precise scope of side effects ('with its reports, exports and automations'). It also distinguishes this from other archive tools by emphasizing the archive is recoverable rather than permanent, and the singular 'by ID' separates it from the plural sibling archive_clients.

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 by naming the lifecycle counterparts list_archive and restore_from_archive, implying the tool is for reversible, client-scoped archiving. It does not explicitly call out when to use archive_clients or individual archive_* tools instead, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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