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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false generically; the description adds per-kind semantics that matter operationally – report/alert/event/virtualDimension perform soft deletes via archivedAt/deletedAt while dashboard 'permanently deletes the dashboard row'. It also discloses that no MCP restore exists, which is exactly the kind of irreversibility detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition and routing before the kind-specific lines. The line-by-line enumeration of archivedAt/deletedAt is slightly repetitive but each line carries distinct per-kind behavior, so it earns its space.

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 no-output-schema, 4-parameter object with a tricky dependent parameter (alertType), the description covers purpose, routing to alternatives, per-kind side effects, and the alertType coupling – everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 low (25%), so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines alertType as 'the type field from list_alerts' and constrains it to resourceKind=costAlert, and notes a budget alert isn't its own kind. resourceId itself gets no added meaning, so it falls just short of full compensation.

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 (soft-delete / hide) one saved Costory object') and immediately demarcates scope ('it does not create or edit objects'). The specific resourceKinds enumerated make it trivially distinguishable from siblings like archive_report and delete_tag.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('archive, remove, or delete a report, cost alert, event, virtual dimension, or dashboard'), explicit exclusions ('Do not use this to hard-delete an alert', 'No bulk'), and named alternatives for the two lookalike cases (discard_virtual_dimension_draft, delete_tag). Nothing 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.