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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' — resolving the apparent mismatch between the 'archive' name and the read-only hint. It adds useful context beyond the annotations: the return content is procedural instructions, and a browser session is required to actually complete the action. It does not cover failure cases, such as an unknown or already-archived post.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately corrected with the key caveat that it only returns instructions. The phrase 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is mild marketing filler, and the API plan-availability note, while justifying the browser route, is slightly tangential.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns, that it has no side effects, and which tools to chain afterward. The only gap is that the exact shape of the returned instructions is described only loosely.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully closed, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies the target account is implicit from the authenticated session rather than a parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource (archive a Slab post) and immediately clarifies the actual behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the archive. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling cotlet_browser_* tools that do the real work, so an agent can tell what this tool is versus what it is not.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow handoff: call this first to get the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Slab Cloud Browser. It also explains why the official API is not an option (GraphQL restricted to Business/Enterprise plans). It stops short of stating exclusions, such as what to do for a post the user does not own or when to prefer slab_read_post first.

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