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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description reveals the soft-delete behavior (`removed from ordering but stays on historical orders`), role requirements, and the explicit instruction to confirm with the user. It also warns `DESTRUCTIVE operation`, adding meaningful safety context that annotations alone do not fully convey.

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 compact but information-dense, front-loading the core action and soft-delete semantics before moving to the alternative and warnings. Every sentence earns its place: consequences, alternative, role, danger, and ID sourcing are all covered without 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 an admin-only destructive mutation, the description covers when to use it, when not to, required role, confirm-before-invoking warning, ID provenance, and the post-archive behavior. With an output schema present, return-value documentation is not needed. The description is fully adequate for correct invocation.

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 100% coverage for both parameters, including where to source their values. The description reinforces this by telling the agent to get `restaurant_id` from `list_school_restaurants` and `menu_item_id` from `list_restaurant_menu_items`, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 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 and resource: `Archives (soft-deletes) a menu item`, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling `update_restaurant_menu_item` path. It also states the operational scope (`Admin`) and the exact consequence (`can no longer be ordered`).

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?

Explicitly explains when to use archive vs. update: `To retire it from the restaurant menu without archiving, use update_restaurant_menu_item with is_active=false.` It also names the required role and tells the agent how to obtain the necessary IDs from sibling list tools.

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