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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint/destructiveHint; the description adds far more: reversibility, that it is not a permanent delete, that archived surveys vanish from list_surveys and free a concurrent-survey slot, that get_survey still serves them with archived:true, and that the archived state is re-read server-side before success. Consistent with, and far richer than, the 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?

Front-loads the core action and its scope in the first clause, then layers prohibitions and edge-case outcomes. Dense with parentheticals but every sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information with no padding.

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?

Covers preconditions, refusals, alternatives, downstream effects on listing/slots/retrieval, idempotent re-archive behavior, and server-side verification. An output schema exists so return-format detail is unnecessary; nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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% and the single `code` parameter is fully documented (8-character code, sourced from list_surveys) inside the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what structured data already supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb and resource ('Archives a DRAFT survey ... to the recoverable bin') and immediately scopes it to never-running, response-free surveys. This cleanly separates it from siblings like delete_survey and pause_survey without the agent needing to open any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (only DRAFT surveys) and when-NOT (refuses running surveys, refuses surveys with responses), and names the alternative for each blocked case: 'stop them first with pause_survey' or handle in the app. Nothing is left to inference.

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