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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description corrects the over-broad reading by disclosing this is a non-permanent archive with a documented restore path — exactly the kind of nuance annotations cannot express. It also states the authentication prerequisite and the required re-invocation after authenticating.

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?

Front-loads the operation and its soft-delete semantics in the first clause, with supporting detail after. The auth note is a separate paragraph and earns its space, though the phrasing is slightly repetitive ('Authenticate this client' / 'start_login does NOT open this tool').

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 no output schema, the description covers what changes, the observable effect (drops out of the default list), recoverability, and the auth gate. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly or recover from an auth failure.

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% and the single id parameter is already documented as 'Circle ID to archive' with a hex pattern. The description adds no format, source (where to obtain the ID), or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a precise verb+resource (archive a Circle) and immediately qualifies it as a soft delete that sets status to archived. This distinguishes it from hard-delete siblings like delete_domain or delete_template, which an agent browsing the large sibling list would otherwise conflate.

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?

Gives concrete consequences and a recovery path (recoverable via list_circles with status="archived"), and adds an important routing caveat that start_login does not unlock this tool. It does not compare against update_circle for non-destructive status changes, so the alternative comparison is only implicit.

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