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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing idempotency, permanence, and the lack of any programmatic way to reverse the action (only contacting support). It also specifies the required token type and scope, which the annotations do not mention. This is exactly the kind of additional behavioral context that helps an agent understand the consequences and caveats of the tool.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the main action, then immediately provides critical caveats (idempotent, permanent, auth requirements) in three sentences. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description is fully complete. It covers the purpose, the effect on the sibling archive_project, the irrevocable nature, and the required credentials. There are no obvious gaps that would leave an agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool or what to expect.

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 input schema has 100% coverage of the single parameter 'slug', which is described as 'The slug of a project you own.' The description does not add any new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does reinforce the ownership requirement, but that is already present in the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Turn on archive protection for a project you own.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool archive_project by explaining that this tool prevents archiving, while archive_project performs the archiving action. The title 'Protect project from archiving' reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to guard a project against archiving, and explicitly notes that archive_project will refuse until protection is lifted. It also states a prerequisite (ACCOUNT-scoped token and config scope), which helps agents decide if they are authorized. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or spell out 'use this instead of X', so it falls short of a full 5.

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