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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety signals are covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value that the annotations lack: archiving retains customers' promised access rather than revoking it. It still omits reversibility and what happens to the bonus in listings, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

A single sentence, verb-first, with the most decision-relevant fact (customer access preserved) front-loaded. Nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema and no documented parameters, the definition covers the core policy but leaves out reversibility, required permissions, and the meaning of the confirm flag. An agent can pick the tool correctly but lacks enough to predict consequences fully.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across three parameters, the description must carry the meaning, and it does not: film_id, bonus_id, and their relationship are never addressed. The confirm=true gate, which signals that archiving is a deliberate confirmed action, is also left entirely to the schema.

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 gives a specific verb (Archive) and resource (a bonus item) plus a scope qualifier: existing customers' promised access is preserved. That distinguishes it from create_film_bonus, update_film_bonus, and reorder_film_bonus, though no sibling is named by contrast.

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 phrase 'preserving existing customers' promised access' implies when to prefer archive over removal or editing, but this is inference rather than explicit guidance. It never states exclusions, prerequisites such as film ownership, or what to use if the customer access should also end.

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