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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important behavioral details: archiving cascades to subtrees, restoring also restores ancestors, and the operation is reversible unlike delete_folder. These are exactly the kind of non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to know.

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 sentences with no fluff. The core capability is front-loaded, and each additional sentence adds unique value: batch nature, cascade/restore behavior, and a concrete usage example.

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?

The description covers the key behavioral aspects, typical usage, and reversibility, which is enough for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. The only minor gap is that the action parameter is not explicitly described, but the enum and default make it reasonably discoverable.

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?

The schema already documents the folders parameter well. The description adds semantic weight to the action parameter by explaining archive versus restore behavior, but it does not explicitly map 'restore' to the 'unarchive' enum value. It compensates partially for the 50% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the operation: archive or restore several assignment folders in a single call. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_folder by explicitly noting reversibility and batch scope.

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 description gives a concrete use case — a typical weekly reset — and explains that multiple week folders should be passed at once. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and contextually useful.

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