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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that: the term is removed from the active dictionary but its content is preserved and it remains discoverable through list_dictionary_terms with archived=true, and it becomes deletable. It does not spell out whether the operation is reversible (the sibling unarchive_dictionary_term implies it, but the description doesn't say so).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the state consequence, then the downstream constraint. Nothing is redundant and every sentence adds information.

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, non-destructive, idempotent state change with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: effect on visibility, content retention, discoverability, and the delete prerequisite. Only the reverse operation (unarchive) is left implicit.

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?

Only one parameter, fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no syntax or format detail for 'id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 dictionary term') and immediately differentiates it from the sibling delete_dictionary_term by explaining the term survives archival. An agent can distinguish archive / unarchive / delete / update at a glance.

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?

Gives clear context: the term leaves the active dictionary but stays readable via list_dictionary_terms with archived=true, and notes that only archived terms can be deleted (an implicit prerequisite for delete_dictionary_term). It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement (e.g. 'use delete_dictionary_term to remove permanently').

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