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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: the operation is an archive rather than an irreversible purge, the resulting state is 'archived', and downstream confirmations stop working. It also discloses the auth precondition, which annotations do not cover.

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 core operation and its consequence are front-loaded in two tight sentences. The trailing ACCESS block is boilerplate-heavy and the clause 'start_login does NOT open this tool' is awkwardly worded, slightly diluting the otherwise efficient structure.

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 with no output schema and safety already covered by annotations, the description supplies the lifecycle consequence and auth requirement an agent needs. The oddly phrased auth note leaves minor ambiguity about the exact authentication flow.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail for the ID, so the baseline 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 specific verb and resource ('Delete (archive) a HITL config') and immediately clarifies that deletion is a soft-archive via status change, which separates it from hard-delete siblings like delete_hitl_keys. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 a usage consequence ('Cannot be used for new confirmations after deletion') and an access precondition (needs a Proof account, authenticate first). It does not explicitly route to alternatives such as update_hitl or delete_hitl_keys, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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