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

Although annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: data is retained, unstarted scheduled posts are moved to drafts, the default Workspace is excluded, and no restore operation exists. It also reinforces retry behavior with the identical body and idempotencyKey. This goes well beyond restating annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the operation and side effect first, then constraints and operational guidance. Every sentence contributes either differentiation, safety context, or retry behavior.

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 destructive workspace-archive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: retention behavior, side effects on scheduled posts, default Workspace exclusion, lack of restore, commandVersion use, and idempotent retry. Nothing critical is missing for an agent 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 high at 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description reinforces expectedCommandVersion and idempotencyKey usage, but it largely repeats the schema's idempotency guidance and does not explain the required 'reason' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most parameter meaning.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Archive an Agency Workspace.' It also names the important side effect, moving unstarted scheduled posts to drafts, which distinguishes it from generic workspace operations and from post-level tools in the sibling list.

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?

It gives clear usage context and constraints: the default Workspace cannot be archived and no restore operation is available. It also says to confirm the selected workspace and use its commandVersion. It does not explicitly compare this with an alternative archive/delete pathway, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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