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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds useful context about what archiving does to the issue: it leaves the board and default lists. It does not mention reversibility via unarchive_issue, but the core behavioral effect is disclosed.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The core behavior is stated first, and the alternative tool is mentioned second, making it easy to scan and act on.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what archiving does, how it differs from deleting, and what input is required. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema already provides complete documentation for the single 'issue' parameter with a clear example. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and it does not.

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 clearly defines the action: 'Archive an issue so it leaves the board and the default lists.' It names a specific verb and resource entity, and immediately differentiates itself from delete_issue, which is the key sibling to distinguish against.

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 explicitly states the effect of archiving and points to delete_issue as the alternative when permanent removal is intended. This gives the agent a direct decision rule for choosing between archive and delete.

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