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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: it explains the effect (leaves the active planning order), the preservation guarantee (keeps its content), and the resulting state ('state archived' visible via list_ideas). It does not mention reversibility via restore_idea or any permission requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the action and then the post-condition. Every clause earns its place by describing a distinct behavioral consequence.

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, no-output-schema mutation with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential state-transition and retrieval context. It stops short of naming the reverse operation (restore_idea), a minor gap for an agent deciding between archive and delete.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, sourcing, or ID-resolution guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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 (idea) and immediately scopes it to completed ideas. The clause about leaving the active planning order while keeping content distinguishes it from the destructive delete_idea sibling, so an agent can tell them apart without opening a schema.

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?

Implies the condition for use ('a completed idea') but names no alternative explicitly, so the agent must infer that restore_idea reverses it and delete_idea removes it permanently. The when-to-use is present; the when-not-to and alternatives are not.

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