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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully elaborates on that non-destructive profile: new runs stop, in-flight runs continue, history is preserved. It doesn't cover reversibility (unarchive_workflow exists) or auth/permission needs, leaving a small gap.

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, front-loaded with the action. The second sentence carries only non-redundant behavioral detail about runs and history.

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 simple two-param archival tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers the essentials plus the key non-destructive behavior. The main missing piece is routing guidance versus delete/cancel/unarchive siblings.

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%, with both projectId and workflowId documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (workflow) and frames the intent (no longer used). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like delete_workflow, cancel_workflow, or unarchive_workflow, so the agent must infer the boundary from naming alone.

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 when to use it via 'no longer uses', but never states when-not-to-use or names an alternative such as delete_workflow. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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