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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with all three while adding real side-effect detail the annotations cannot convey: which surfaces the delivery disappears from and which data survives. The agent knows exactly what changes and what remains accessible.

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 tight sentences: the action first, then the consequences. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the most decision-relevant fact (what is preserved) is placed where an agent will read it.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the visible effects, and the retrieval path. It stops short of noting reversibility via unarchive_delivery or any permission requirements, which would have made it fully self-contained.

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?

There is a single parameter ('id') with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for the id, making this baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Archive a delivery') and immediately scopes it: the record and batches are kept, but the item leaves the Deliveries page, Public Delivery Page, and showcase. That scope statement is what separates it from the adjacent delete_delivery and unarchive_delivery siblings.

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 for when this is the right operation (soft removal that preserves records and batches) and tells the agent how to still read the item via list_deliveries with archived=true. It never explicitly names delete_delivery as the destructive alternative or unarchive_delivery as the undo path, so routing guidance is strong but not fully spelled out.

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