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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world) by disclosing per-kind side effects: what surfaces the record disappears from, what content/revision history survives, and that an in-flight workflow run continues while new runs are blocked. The reversible-via-unarchive behavior is consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-sentence summary and the reversibility guarantee before the per-kind bullets. The length is justified because archiving genuinely differs per kind, though seven bullets is a lot to absorb.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers reversibility, retained content, and visibility changes for every supported kind. It omits error/permission cases (e.g. what happens if the id does not exist or the record is already archived) and does not describe the response.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by unpacking each of the seven kind enum values into concrete per-kind behavior. The id parameter is covered only generically, keeping this from a 5.

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 (archive) and resource (one record, keyed by kind and id), plus the core behavioral promise: it leaves the active list but keeps its content, and unarchive reverses it. This clearly separates it from the delete_* siblings and from unarchive.

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?

Strong implied guidance: archiving is the reversible alternative to deletion, and multiple bullets note that 'only archived X can be deleted', which tells the agent archive is a prerequisite step. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or direct naming of the delete siblings, so it stops 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.