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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the deletion is a soft delete and there is no restore path via MCP, which materially changes how an agent should weigh the call.

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, waste-free clauses covering redirect, deprecation date, and semantics. Slightly awkward ordering, since the redirect precedes the statement of what the tool does, but nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials plus the undo limitation. Only missing nicety is explicit permission requirements for archiving a report.

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 both parameters (reportId, slug) are documented in-schema, including the auto-detect caveat for slug. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 report') and names the replacement sibling archive_object, so the agent can distinguish it from the other 50+ tools. It is not a tautology, but the purpose sentence is pushed to third position behind the redirect and deprecation notice.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to archive_object and gives a concrete temporal condition ('Deprecated on 1 October 2026'), which effectively says when not to use this tool. No other exclusions or prerequisites are stated, but the alternative is unambiguous.

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