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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description clarifies that pages and widgets remain attached and that the report is recoverable ('not away'). This directly addresses what the destructive hint suggests and gives the agent nuanced safety information.

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 brief sentences front-load the action and add only high-value behavior details. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 parameter, existing output schema, and annotations, the description covers the critical invocation context: what persists, where it goes, and how it can be reversed. Nothing needed for correct use 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 schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter, including its origin from list_reports. The description only says 'by ID' and adds no new parameter meaning, so a baseline 3 with full schema coverage 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?

The description clearly states the action (archive) and resource (a report by ID), and the title extends it to dashboards. However, it does not distinguish this singular tool from the sibling 'archive_reports' beyond number, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 gives useful lifecycle context: archived items appear in list_archive and can be restored via restore_from_archive. It implies when to use the tool (preserve rather than permanently remove), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares with sibling archive operations.

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