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

The description substantially exceeds what the annotations alone provide. It discloses that archiving removes accounts from lists, stops sync, does not delete anything, is undoable, and that restoring consumes a plan slot and can fail. These details are not captured by readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, or destructiveHint=false, and nothing contradicts 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the main purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct operational value such as side effects, reversibility, and failure mode. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema fields.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, this description is highly complete. It covers what the operation does, what side effects occur, reversibility, the main failure condition, and how to select this tool over its destructive sibling. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents the accounts, archived, and platform parameters well. The description adds useful conceptual context about the archive/restore mental model and plan-slot cost, but it does not add new per-parameter format or syntax details beyond 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 clearly states the operation: archiving or restoring one or more of the org's own connected accounts. It also explicitly differentiates itself from delete_my_accounts by emphasizing that archiving is reversible and non-destructive, which distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly says to prefer this tool over delete_my_accounts whenever data might still be wanted, which is a concrete selection rule. It also warns about a real failure mode when restoring, LIMIT_REACHED, giving the agent useful expectations about when the operation can fail.

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