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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: the permission requirement and the concrete endpoint. It stops short of saying whether the archive is reversible (restore_user exists) or what the response contains.

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 short clauses with the operation front-loaded and limitations second; no filler. It is tightly sized, though the endpoint restatement is slightly redundant with the tool's purpose.

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 7-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision inputs: what it does, that it is destructive, and that permissions are required. Missing only reversibility and any notion of what happens to the user's data, which would round it out.

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 86%, so the schema already documents confirm, base_url, api_token, account_id, access_token, and app_password. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as user_id format or account_id requirements, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Archives/closes a user') plus the underlying endpoint /users/close/:user_id, which pins down the operation precisely. It is distinguishable from the sibling restore_user, though the description never names that counterpart, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 'Limitations' clause tells the agent this is a destructive write requiring user-management permissions, which is useful context for deciding whether to call it. However, it never states when to use this versus restore_user or update_user, nor any preconditions beyond permissions, so 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.