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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description clarifies that the action is actually non-destructive (reversible) and only becomes permanent upon explicit deletion from the archive. This adds valuable context beyond the annotation and prevents the agent from overestimating the tool's destructive impact. It also explains the storage behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds value: it states the action, corrects a likely misconception, names the recovery tools, and specifies the only deletion condition. No redundant words.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description fully covers the behavior: what happens on archive, how to see it, how to restore it, and when it is actually removed. It also references the source of the id (list_media) via the schema. With an output schema present, nothing essential is missing.

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?

The only parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema ('Media file ID to archive (from list_media)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Archive a media file') and immediately clarifies that archiving is not deletion ('not away'). It also names the complementary tools (list_archive, restore_from_archive) and the only condition for permanent removal, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from deletion-related 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 explains the outcome of archiving (goes to archive, can be listed/restored) and clarifies that it is not permanent deletion, which guides an agent on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly address alternative archive tools like archive_media_files (plural) or archive_asset, so it leaves some differentiation to inference.

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