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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses that the recipe will not run and that in-flight work may still complete — non-obvious side-effect timing an agent needs.

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 and followed by two scoping caveats. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

Annotations and the existing output schema relieve the description of explaining safety and return values, and the archival side-effects are noted. However, for a destructive mutation with four required parameters at 0% schema coverage, the absence of any parameter or concurrency guidance leaves an agent under-informed on how to call it correctly.

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 0% and the description says nothing about the four required parameters. Names like brandId and automationId are largely self-explanatory, but revision (optimistic concurrency) and idempotencyKey carry non-obvious semantics that go undocumented anywhere, so the description fails to compensate.

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 saved automation.' That is clear on its own, and it distinguishes the operation from executing the recipe. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like pause_automation or delete-type operations, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clarifies scope ('Does not execute its recipe') but never says when to archive versus pause_automation, resume_* or other lifecycle operations. Usage is implied by the verb 'archive' rather than stated, and there are no exclusions or alternative-routing hints.

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