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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses concrete side effects: open Chases become skipped, links stop working, and the Client stops counting toward the plan limit. It also explains the critical dry-run default (confirm:false shows what would change) and reversibility via unarchive, which the destructiveHint alone would not convey.

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 compact sentences front-load the effect of the action, then the usage condition. Every clause carries new information (consequences, dry-run default, reversal) with no repetition beyond the necessary restatement of confirm.

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 mutation with annotations already covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies consequences, precondition, and the reversal path. It omits retry guidance for idempotency_key even though idempotentHint is false, which is the only meaningful remaining gap.

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 75%, and the one undocumented parameter, unarchive, is fully explained in the description ('brings them back'). The confirm semantics are restated with the same meaning as the schema, and idempotency_key is left entirely to the schema, so it adds value but not across all four parameters.

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 names a specific verb and resource (archive a Client) and its inverse (unarchive:true), and describes the resulting state change. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_client or list_clients, which act on data rather than lifecycle status.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use this when: a Client leaves the practice or comes back.' That covers both directions of use. It does not, however, name an alternative (e.g., update_client for correcting details instead of removing access), so routing is clear by context rather than by explicit exclusion.

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