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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral consequence that archiving stops future use, but doesn't explain reversibility, required permissions, or side effects beyond that, leaving gaps for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and effect with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, for a destructive mutation with only two parameters and partial schema coverage, the description should clarify irreversibility, permission requirements, or the fate of existing documents; it leaves these behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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 50%. The description adds no meaning for splitter_id or project_slug; it only mentions 'a splitter' generically. The project_slug schema description already explains its conditional requirement, so the description doesn't compensate for the uncovered splitter_id.

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?

Clear verb 'archive' and resource 'splitter', with the effect stated ('stop using it for future documents'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like splitters.update_logical or splitters.publish, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative sibling to use for deactivation.

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?

Implies usage when a splitter should no longer be used, but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g., when to archive vs update or delete). The context is clear but not directive.

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