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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description clarifies this is reversible archiving, not permanent deletion, which is valuable context beyond the annotation. It also notes the batch nature ('in one call'). No contradictions, but it doesn't cover failure modes or partial success, so not a perfect 5.

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, no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the clarifying note about reversibility is concise and relevant. Every word 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 batch archive tool with an output schema present, the description covers the effect, reversibility, and related tools. An agent can decide to use it and understand the outcome without missing critical information.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'ids' parameter, including its origin (list_media). The description adds only that the operation is by ID and batch-oriented, which slightly reinforces the schema but doesn't introduce new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (archive media files) and scopes it to multiple files in one call, which distinguishes it from the singular archive_media_file sibling. The phrase 'by ID' adds precision, and the sentence is unambiguous.

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?

Explains the archival semantics ('not away') and references list_archive and restore_from_archive as complementary tools. It does not explicitly name archive_media_file as the alternative for a single file, but the plural scope implies it, so the usage context is clear.

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