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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by stating 'no LLM cost — pure DB write,' clarifying the soft-delete semantics, and noting that the agent 'remains in the database but is hidden from default listings.' It does not mention reversibility explicitly, but 'soft-delete' and the sibling unarchive_agent imply it.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core operation: 'Archive an agent (soft-delete).' The additional sentences add useful context about cost, scope, persistence, and addressing. It could be tightened slightly by merging the introductory clauses, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the low complexity, two optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the behavioral outcome and addressing constraint well. Minor omissions like explicit reversal path or permission requirements are not critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description repeats the XOR relationship between agentId and title, which adds emphasis but not new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. This is the baseline case where structured data does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Archive an agent (soft-delete).' It elaborates on the observable effect ('hidden from default listings'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like unarchive_agent and other agent-management tools. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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 gives clear contextual scope: 'Only relevant when managing Aurora agents.' It implies use when the goal is to soft-delete an agent, and the sibling set includes unarchive_agent as the natural inverse. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient.

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