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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations: it clarifies that archiving is not permanent ('not away') and that archived media can be listed and restored. It does not cover partial failures or metadata retention, but for a reversible archive operation this is sufficient.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second sentence disambiguates the permanence of the operation and names the recovery tools.

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?

Given the single well-documented parameter, the output schema, and the annotations, the description is complete. It explains what happens to the files, where they appear, and how to reverse the operation, so an agent has enough context to call this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents ids as 'Media file IDs to archive (from list_media)' with minItems: 1. The description adds only that the operation is batched by ID, which matches the schema without providing additional parameter-level meaning.

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 several media files by ID in one call.' It clearly distinguishes this batch tool from the singular sibling archive_media_file and from other archive_* tools that target different resource types.

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 establishes the main use case — archiving multiple files in a single batch call — and explains the recovery path via list_archive and restore_from_archive. It does not explicitly name an alternative for permanent deletion, but the context is clear enough given the tool's reversible behavior.

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