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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's contribution is the scope of destruction: the test stops executing while run history is preserved. That is precisely the kind of beyond-schema behavior an agent needs, though it omits whether archiving can be undone or what a repeat call does.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two consequences that matter. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what happens to the test and what survives. Reversibility and permission requirements are the only notable absences.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Test id (t_…)'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('Archive a test') and immediately defines the effect ('it stops running'). It reconciles the misleading delete_test name by framing the operation as archival. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent delete_* siblings, which keeps it below a 5.

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 phrase 'past runs stay in the run history' implies when this is preferable to a hard delete, but no alternative tool or explicit when-not condition is named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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