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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it states the operation is reversible (project+slug persist, data plane drops tenant with 404), idempotent, fails on archive protection, and requires an ACCOUNT-scoped token and config scope. These details are not in the annotations and give the agent a precise mental model of side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then adds essential caveats (reversible, idempotent, protection error, token/scope) in a compact sequence. Every sentence carries information, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, error conditions, idempotency, and the effect on the data plane. It omits only the success response format, which is not critical for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The schema already fully documents the single slug parameter with 'The slug of a project you own,' and the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond restating the ownership requirement. With 100% schema coverage, 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?

The description opens with the specific verb 'Archive' and the precise resource 'a project you own,' clearly distinguishing it from siblings like unarchive_project. It further clarifies the scope by stating the project must be owned, and the reversible nature confirms it is the archiving action rather than a deletion.

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 gives clear context: you must own the project and have the required token and scope, and it fails if archive protection is enabled. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use unarchive_project to reverse,' leaving some inference to the agent despite the sibling list being available.

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