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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: archiving is recoverable ('not away'), and it names the exact tools to view and reverse the operation. DestructiveHint=true is not contradicted since this is still a non-read-only state change, but the recoverability nuance is valuable.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action and scope, the second clarifies lifecycle behavior. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause 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, batch archive operation, the description plus annotations and output schema cover everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It explains what happens to the clients and how to recover them, leaving no critical gaps.

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% for the single parameter, and the schema already says 'Array of client IDs to archive (from list_clients)'. The description reinforces the 'by ID' and 'in one call' aspects but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 several clients by ID in one call') and clearly identifies the batch scope, distinguishing it from the singular archive_client sibling. It also names related lifecycle tools (list_archive, restore_from_archive), reinforcing what the tool is for.

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 context: use this when archiving multiple clients in a single call, and it points to list_archive/restore_from_archive for later retrieval. It doesn't explicitly exclude the singular archive_client alternative, but the batch framing makes the intended usage evident.

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