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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond that by stating the goal 'goes to the archive, not away' and that list_archive/restore_from_archive can show and restore it. This clarifies the real-world effect of the destructive hint without contradicting it.

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 description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Archive a goal by ID') and then adds a useful clarifying clause about recoverability and related tools. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 annotations already defining read-only and destructive hints, the description covers the key behavioral nuance of archiving. It could optionally mention side effects on active lists or permissions, but the provided context is sufficient for correct selection and 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 coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is already described as 'Goal ID (from list_goals)'. The description adds only the phrase 'by ID', which doesn't meaningfully extend the schema's parameter documentation, so the baseline score of 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 verb and resource: 'Archive a goal by ID.' It also names related tools (list_archive, restore_from_archive) and clarifies that the goal is recoverable, which helps distinguish archive from a permanent delete. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with other sibling tools, but the resource and action are clear.

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 implies when to use this tool: to put a goal into the archive while keeping it recoverable. However, it never explicitly says 'use this when you want to remove from active view but not permanently delete' or names situations where a different tool should be used. Usage context is conveyed through behavior rather than direct guidance.

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