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

The description discloses important non-obvious outcomes: the row is never deleted, it remains readable, it leaves the active-household meter, and it rejects further writes/projections. This goes beyond the annotations, which only flag the operation as mutating and destructive; the 'never deleted' wording refines the destructiveHint rather than contradicting it.

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 with the core action, followed by a useful behavioral clarification in parentheses. The only slightly redundant or confusing part is the 'same operation as DELETE' reference, which is informative for API mapping but muddies the 'never deleted' statement.

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 simple two-parameter operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral outcomes and the irreversible consequences. It could be more complete by stating the id parameter explicitly and clarifying the relationship to the DELETE endpoint, but no critical execution detail 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?

Only one of the two parameters has a schema description (api_key), and the tool description does not explicitly explain that id is the stored household id. The phrase 'a stored household' plus the archive_household name makes this inferable, but the description itself adds little direct parameter meaning 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 opens with a specific verb and object—'Archive a stored household'—and immediately clarifies the exact semantics with the parenthetical about never deleting, remaining readable, leaving the active-household meter, and stopping writes/projections. This distinguishes it from sibling operations such as list, patch, project, or create, even though the endpoint reference to DELETE is slightly confusing.

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 behavior implies when to use it: to retire a household from active use while preserving the row for future reading. However, it never explicitly says 'use this instead of X' or 'use this when...', so an agent must infer the use case from the described effects.

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