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

Annotations mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important context: the file is not deleted, it is moved to archive and can be restored, with permanent deletion only when explicitly done. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies the exact behavioral outcome.

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 that front-load the action and clarify the non-destructive nature. Every sentence adds value and there is no waste.

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 full schema coverage and an output schema, the description explains the full lifecycle and related tools, making it complete for correct 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 already fully documents the only parameter (id) with source guidance ('from list_media'), and the description does not add further parameter details. With 100% schema coverage, 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 clearly states the action (archive) and resource (media file), and clarifies the semantics with 'It goes to the archive, not away' and mentions related tools (list_archive, restore_from_archive). It distinguishes from deletion and other archive tools.

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?

It explains the behavior and points to related tools, implying when to use this tool for reversible archiving. However, it does not explicitly compare to other archive variants like archive_media_files or deletion tools, so it misses a direct alternative comparison.

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