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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the project becomes read-only, that writes fail with PROJECT_ARCHIVED, that it is hidden from lists unless archived items are requested, that nothing is deleted, that unarchive reverses it, and that readiness checks return READINESS_GAPS under BLOCK mode. Also states the required roles and permission (Owner/Manager or org.compliance.manage).

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 primary effect (read-only, hidden) before the exceptions and roles. Dense but virtually every clause carries operational information; only the dense packing of readiness-mode and role details slightly hurts scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers return behavior (verdict returned in WARN mode), error codes (PROJECT_ARCHIVED, READINESS_GAPS), reversibility, and authorization requirements, which is everything needed to invoke 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 0% and the single required projectId parameter is not described in the description or schema. The parameter is self-evident from its name, so the gap is minor, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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), resource (project), and precondition (completed or cancelled project), and names the reversing sibling unarchive_project. An agent can immediately distinguish it from delete_project and create_project.

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?

Gives the condition that makes archival appropriate (project is completed/cancelled), names unarchive_project as the reversal, and explains the readiness-gate behavior under BLOCK/WARN. It does not explicitly say when to prefer delete_project instead, but the 'nothing is deleted' framing covers the main confusion.

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