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

Without the description the agent would only see destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the text explains that this is a soft-delete that hides but retains the record, which resolves the otherwise confusing non-destructive annotation, and it also discloses the return payload. It stops short of saying whether archiving is reversible or who may perform 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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by the soft-delete caveat, then Args/Returns; every line earns its place, though the labeled Args/Returns scaffolding is slightly heavier than needed for a single scalar parameter.

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?

With no output schema, the inline Returns block usefully describes the success and error shapes, and the soft-delete note covers the main behavioral question for a one-parameter mutation. Missing only permission/authorization context and whether an archived scenario can be restored.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, yet 'scenario_id: The scenario to delete' essentially restates the field name and adds no format, source (e.g. from list_scenarios), or validation detail. Minimal compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) plus the resource (what-if scenario) and immediately disambiguates by glossing the operation as 'archive', which separates it from hard deletes such as delete_transaction and from sibling scenario tools (get_scenario, update_scenario, commit_scenario).

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?

Usage is only implied by the name; there is no statement of when to archive a scenario versus committing, updating, or simply listing it, and no prerequisites. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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