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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description's value is in explaining that archiving is not permanent destruction. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the record remains accessible and reversible, which goes beyond the annotation.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the clarifying contrast with permanent deletion and references to list_archive/restore_from_archive each earn their 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-required-parameter tool with an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains the operation, the archive semantics, and the recovery path, so an agent has enough to call 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 already includes 'Export ID (from list_exports)'. The description only echoes 'by ID' and adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 PDF export record by ID') and names the resource (PDF export) and the operation (archive). It also distinguishes this from permanent deletion by clarifying 'It goes to the archive, not away', which helps differentiate it from destructive delete-type 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 provides clear context: the tool archives an export, and archived items are visible via list_archive and recoverable via restore_from_archive. This implies when to use it and names the inverse alternative, though it does not explicitly state conditions for when not to use it or compare with other archive_* tools.

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