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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint: true), and the description adds valuable context beyond that: the template is moved to an archive rather than permanently removed, and it can be recovered via restore_from_archive. This directly addresses a common misunderstanding about permanent deletion and gives the agent a clearer mental model of the side effects.

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 tightly written sentences. The first states the action; the second clarifies the outcome and recovery path. No filler or redundant phrasing; 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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete. It explains the destination (archive), the verification mechanism (list_archive), and the reversal path (restore_from_archive), giving an agent everything needed to call it safely and interpret the result.

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 documented in the schema with 'Template ID to archive (from list_templates).' The tool description merely repeats 'by ID' without adding new details such as format, validation, or source. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description contributes no additional parameter insight.

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 a template by ID.' It also clearly distinguishes archiving from permanent deletion with 'It goes to the archive, not away,' and references related tools (list_archive, restore_from_archive) that make the intent unmistakable.

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 provides clear context about what happens after archiving and points to list_archive and restore_from_archive as related lifecycle operations. It does not explicitly rule out using archive_* tools for other resource types, but the template-specific scope is obvious from the name and context.

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