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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context: 'Free' (no cost), 'requires the act scope' (authorization), and 'Idempotent on an already-archived move' (repeated calls safe). It also clarifies the semantic distinction from skip, providing behavioral nuance not captured by annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, differentiation, cost, scope, and idempotency. No filler or redundancy. The key verb and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description is fully sufficient. It covers what, when, prerequisites, cost, and behavioral guarantees. No output schema exists, but the tool is a mutation, and the description does not need to explain return values. Siblings are acknowledged via the skip contrast, making it contextually complete.

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%: move_id is described as 'Move id (uuid), from list_feed.' The description adds no extra parameter detail, which is acceptable since the schema fully documents the single parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Archive a growth move', a specific verb+resource that clearly states the action. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting with skip: 'a lighter dismissal than skip, with no verdict recorded'. This makes its purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from skip_move and dismiss_gap.

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 explicitly contrasts with skip, signaling when to choose archive over skip (lighter dismissal, no verdict). It also notes the prerequisite 'act' scope and idempotency, which guide safe repeated use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives beyond skip or state a 'when not to use' clause, leaving a small gap.

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