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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so 'Limitations: write operation' largely repeats structured data rather than adding context. It does not say whether the archived customer is recoverable (e.g., via restore_customer), whether data is retained, or what permissions are needed.

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?

Two very short sentences that are front-loaded with the action, which is good. The second sentence, however, only restates what the annotations already declare and does not earn its place, making the definition terse without being informative.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a large set of closely related customer operations, the definition omits the key distinctions an agent needs: archive vs delete semantics, reversibility, and effects on the customer's projects/tasks. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description does not complete the picture.

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 description coverage is 83%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning (auth tokens, account_id, base_url). The description's path template '/customers/close/:customer_id' confirms customer_id is the resource identifier, but adds no new format or constraint information 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+resource ('Archives/closes a customer') and even names the endpoint, so the core action is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like delete_customer, restore_customer, or update_customer, leaving the agent to infer whether archive is a soft-close or a destructive removal.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no conditions under which an agent should archive rather than delete, restore, or update a customer. The only hint ('Limitations: write operation') is a capability note, not a usage rule, so the agent must guess from the sibling list.

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