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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds concrete context beyond them: the downstream effect that the company's QR codes stop being manageable, and the workspace-admin authorization requirement. It omits whether the archive is reversible, which is the key remaining behavioral question.

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 consequence, then permission constraint. No filler or repetition.

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 low-complexity destructive mutation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, effect, and permission model. It leaves unresolved whether archiving is irreversible and what happens to the company's other data, which matters given no unarchive sibling exists.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema contributes only type and format. The description says nothing about the parameter at all, but with one self-evident company identifier the semantics are largely inferable, keeping this at a minimum-viable 3.

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?

'Archive a company' gives a specific verb and resource that is plainly distinct from siblings like companies_update or companies_delete. It does not explicitly name or contrast with a sibling, but the action is unambiguous on its own.

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?

Usage is implied (archive when a company should no longer be active) and the 'Workspace admins only' constraint scopes who may call it. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as companies_update.

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