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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses idempotency, irreversibility (permanent, only support can reverse), and the behavioral side effect on archive_project. It also specifies authentication requirements. This is substantial additional context that helps the agent predict consequences.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose and effect, idempotency, permanence, and auth requirements. The core purpose is front-loaded. No filler or redundant explanation.

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 fully covers what the tool does, its behavioral impact, reversibility, idempotency, and prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and already states 'The slug of a project you own.' The main description repeats the ownership condition but adds no new parameter-level details (format, constraints, or edge cases). Baseline 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 states a specific action ('Turn on archive protection') on a specific resource ('a project you own') and distinguishes it from related tools by explaining the effect on archive_project. The annotation title reinforces the purpose. It clearly separates this from archival/unarchival actions.

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: it is used for projects you own, affects archive_project's behavior, and requires a specific token and scope. It also warns of permanence, which informs the decision to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the conditions are well implied.

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