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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it is a soft-delete, the product stays reachable at /gift/[id] for historical orders but disappears from /gift and the storefront catalog, it is never a hard delete, and the rikma path returns a moach link rather than archiving.

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-loads the core purpose and keeps each sentence functional, but is dense with internal jargon (rikma, moach, restime, Matanot) and packs the sibling-routing, location behavior, and unarchive note into a compact block that a first-time agent must parse carefully.

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 soft-delete tool with no output schema, the description covers ownership prerequisites, the consent-flow divergence, what persists vs vanishes, irreversibility of the delete, and where unarchiving happens – everything needed 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the archived=true/false semantics and the moach-link return for false. The description largely echoes that behavior without adding syntax or constraints the schema lacks, so the 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?

States a specific verb (archive/soft-delete) and resource (a personal product with origin=personal you own), and immediately distinguishes it from updateRikmaProductTool, getRikmaProductTool, and createRikmaProductTool by scoping it to personal products rather than the rikma flow.

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 says when to use it (personal products you own) and when not (rikma products, which route through the proposeObjectArchive consent flow and return a moach link instead), and further tells the agent that unarchiving happens in the moach, not here.

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