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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: no verdict is recorded, the operation is free, it requires the 'act' scope, and it is idempotent on an already-archived move. The annotations only declare destructiveHint=false/readOnly, so the description carries the real behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and sibling comparison, followed by the operational facts (cost, scope, idempotency). No 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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, how it differs from the closest sibling, cost, authorization scope, and idempotency behavior.

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% and the single move_id parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Move id (uuid), from list_feed'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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 specific verb and resource ('archive a growth move') and immediately positions it against the sibling skip_move ('a lighter dismissal than skip'). An agent can distinguish it from skip_move and dismiss_gap without reading either 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 clear selection context by contrasting with skip ('lighter dismissal than skip, with no verdict recorded') and states the cost and required 'act' scope. It doesn't explicitly say when-not to use it or name other alternatives, but the comparative framing is actionable.

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