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

Beyond annotations, it discloses consequential behavior: existing workspaces keep the plan and continue being billed, the plan disappears from the picker, checkout rejects it, and the Stripe product and prices are archived. It also states reversibility via archived: false and that the call returns the number of workspaces on the plan.

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 behavior and then adds usage, reversal, return value, and integration guidance in a dense but purposeful sequence. Every sentence adds actionable context without repetition or filler.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the important missing context: what changes, what does not change, the alternative tool, the reversal path, and the return count. Nothing an agent would need before invoking it is absent.

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%, so key and app are already documented in the schema. The description reiterates that archived: false restores a plan but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own description.

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 subscription plan') and details the precise effects: workspaces keep it and remain billed, it leaves the plan picker, checkout refuses it, and Stripe product/prices are archived. It also explicitly distinguishes this from delete_plan, which refuses plans that have workspaces on them.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('Use it to stop selling a plan that workspaces are on') and names the alternative delete_plan and why it does not apply. It also documents the reversal path via archived: false and a prerequisite for app code consumers to call get_integration_guide with specific parameters.

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