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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value annotations cannot: it specifies what 'destructive' concretely means (removal from the listing, not data loss) and that the action is reversible via restore_research_project. It does not describe the response payload, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Three short sentences: effect, reversal path, gating rule — in that priority order. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description conveys scope, reversibility and the precondition an agent most needs for a destructive tool. The only omission is what the call returns or whether the project remains retrievable via get_research_project, a minor gap for a two-parameter operation.

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 projectId (with pattern and a pointer to list_research_projects) and clientRequestId idempotency are already fully documented. The description only restates that the id refers to 'one of the member's projects', adding a mild ownership constraint but no syntax or format detail. 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?

Specific verb ('Archives') plus resource ('member's projects') and a concrete effect: it leaves the research list and stops being listed. The counterpart tool restore_research_project is named, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a 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 an explicit precondition — 'Call it only when the member asked to archive that project' — which functions as a when-not rule, and points to restore_research_project as the reversal path. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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