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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that deletion is an archive operation that sets status to archived and that the config cannot be used for new confirmations after deletion. It also notes the authentication requirement. This provides meaningful context about the tool's effects and consequences, going beyond a simple 'deletes a config'.

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 the main action front-loaded. The ACCESS note is useful and not excessive. Every sentence contributes information: the action, the consequence, and the auth prerequisite. It is appropriately sized for a simple 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and consequence information. It explains the archive nature, the post-deletion limitation, and the auth requirement. Nothing critical for an agent to call it correctly is missing.

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 the id parameter is already documented. The description does not add any additional detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema covers the parameters, and the description doesn't compensate further.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('HITL config'), with the parenthetical 'archive' clarifying the operation is a soft delete. It distinguishes from delete_hitl_keys by naming the resource specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with update_hitl or other siblings. The action is unambiguous and specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_hitl or delete_hitl_keys. The ACCESS note about authentication is a prerequisite, not a usage directive. It implies usage when you need to archive a HITL config, but there are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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