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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds rich behavioral context: owner-only access, slug occupation, hiding from public listing, fork persistence, metadata update on lineage, and idempotency for already-archived templates. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, with four focused sentences. It front-loads the main action and identifier format, then lists key behavioral effects and conditions. No wasted words.

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 simple parameter set (2 params) and existence of an output schema, the description covers the main action, ownership, idempotency, effects on slugs and forks, and visibility. It sufficiently explains the tool's behavior for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'template_id' (UUID or @handle/slug) and 'archive_reason' (optional note). It mentions 'Owner only' but that's not tied to a specific 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 clearly states the tool archives a template by UUID or @handle/slug. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_template' (archiving keeps slug occupied and hides from public, but forks keep working) and 'unarchive_template' (reverse action). The verb 'Archive' and resource 'template' are specific.

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 specifies 'Owner only' as a usage constraint, and explains effects (slug occupied, hidden from public, forks continue). It implicitly contrasts with deletion and unarchiving, but does not explicitly name alternatives like 'delete_template' or 'unarchive_template'. This is clear but lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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