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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which could imply permanent deletion. The description adds crucial context that the template 'goes to the archive, not away' and that list_archive shows it and restore_from_archive brings it back, clarifying the exact reversible nature of the operation. This goes beyond the annotation and prevents a misconception.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently conveys the archive lifecycle and related sibling tools. Every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, how the operation affects the resource, and how to undo it. Combined with the schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without additional documentation.

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 only parameter 'id' is already documented as 'Template ID to archive (from list_templates)'. The description merely repeats 'by ID' and does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('archive') and resource ('a template by ID'), and immediately distinguishes it from deletion by explaining the archive lifecycle. This clearly separates archive_template from siblings like delete_email_template 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?

The description gives clear context: it archives a template rather than deleting it, and mentions that list_archive and restore_from_archive are the counterpart operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use when you want to temporarily remove a template') or name exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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