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

Annotations mark the operation destructive (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds an important clarification that content is kept, thereby softening the destructive signal and describing the side effect of leaving the sidebar/listings. It doesn't mention reversibility or permissions, but the added context is meaningful.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the action is stated first, followed by the two key effects (removal from UI listings and content retention).

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 one-parameter tool with a clear schema, the description covers the operation's outcome and non-destructive nature. It doesn't describe the return value or how to undo, but these are not necessary for a correct invocation of this simple tool.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter clearly as a document ID or exact title, with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Archive'), names the resource ('a document'), and states observable effects: it leaves the sidebar and default listings while content is kept. This clearly distinguishes archive_doc from delete_doc and aligns with unarchive_doc as the inverse operation.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the goal is to remove a document from the sidebar and default listings without deleting its content. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives such as delete_doc or unarchive_doc, but the behavioral cues make the intended use obvious.

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