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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: the effect depends on document ownership. With no annotations provided, this is valuable context. However, it does not mention reversibility, required permissions, or what happens to the document's visibility in list/search results afterward, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence clarifies a key nuance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the ownership distinction, which is the most relevant contextual information. It could be more complete regarding side effects or reversal, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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 describes the only parameter `slug` as 'Document slug' (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states the action 'archive a document' and distinguishes it from other document tools by explaining ownership-specific behavior. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings like update_document or delete (though not explicitly listed).

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?

The description implies that archiving is used when a document should be removed from active use but not deleted, and it explains how the effect differs for owned vs shared documents. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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