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

Since there are no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does so clearly: soft delete sets status to archived, it stops appearing in the default list, and it is recoverable via list_circles. It also states the access requirement (Proof account) and that authentication is needed. This goes beyond a simple 'archives a circle' and covers key behavioral aspects an agent needs to know. It lacks details on return value or error cases, but these are less critical for such a simple operation.

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 two well-structured sentences plus a two-line access note. The main action and key behavior are front-loaded ('Archive a Circle (soft delete — sets status to archived)'), followed by the recovery context and access requirement. There is no redundant or extraneous text; every sentence adds value.

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 tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, behavior (soft delete, visibility change), recovery usage (list_circles with status filter), and access prerequisites (Proof account, authentication, and the note that start_login does not open this tool). An agent has all necessary information to decide whether and how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 provides a 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'id' ('Circle ID to archive'), including a regex pattern. The tool description adds no additional semantics or details about the parameter beyond what the schema already states. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not enhance it.

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 clear, specific action: 'Archive a Circle (soft delete — sets status to archived)' with the resource 'Circle'. It clarifies the behavior (soft delete) and distinguishes it from any other sibling (there is no other delete_circle). The purpose is unambiguous and self-contained.

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 context for when to use this tool: to archive (soft-delete) a circle, and explicitly notes recoverability via list_circles with status='archived', implying an alternative recovery path. It also includes an access precondition (Proof account, authentication) and explicitly states that start_login does NOT open this tool, giving a clear exclusion. It does not name a direct alternative to this tool because none exists among siblings, but the recovery path and access note constitute reasonable guidance.

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