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

Annotations mark this as a destructive, non-read-only, closed-world mutation, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the operation is reversible in spirit ('never hard-deletes data') and is gated behind user confirmation. Those are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool, though it does not say what happens to dependent data or whether an archive can be undone.

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 sentences with no filler, leading with the operation and following with the two constraints that matter. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the safety profile plus confirmation gate are covered. What is missing is the post-archive state: whether the setup is restorable, where it goes, or how it affects linked sessions and lists.

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 0% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate: 'explicit user confirmation' maps usefully onto the `confirmed` boolean, clarifying it as genuine consent. However, `setupId` receives no explanation at all beyond the generic phrase 'connected user setup', leaving its format and source undocumented.

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 (archive) and a specific resource (all active revisions of a connected user setup), and names the scope of the operation clearly. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like archive_vehicle or archive_session, but the resource is unambiguous enough that an agent can pick it out.

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 a prerequisite ('requires explicit user confirmation'), which is useful usage context, but says nothing about when to archive versus update or delete a setup, nor what state the setup must be in. Usage is implied rather than stated against alternatives.

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