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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real context beyond that: the job retains all its data, no client is reached, no confirmation prompt occurs, and it requires a Cotlet API key with app access. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 and short, but the first two sentences restate the same action ('Move a job to the Archived tab' / 'Moves one job from In progress to Archived'), which is redundant. Some trimming would sharpen it.

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 single-parameter archive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, reversibility of data, client impact, and auth prerequisites. Only the lack of explicit alternative/undo guidance keeps it short of full completeness.

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 job_id is already documented ('Job ID from list_jobs'). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Move a job to the Archived tab', 'from In progress to Archived'), which is unambiguous and lets an agent distinguish it from taxdome_get_job, list_jobs, or create_job without opening a schema.

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 condition for using it is implied (archive a job that belongs in the Archived tab) and it notes no client is contacted, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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