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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the archive is soft rather than a hard delete, that there is no restore path, and that built-in entities are ineligible. One nuance: annotations claim idempotentHint=true while the description warns retrying can fail, which is a mild tension in framing (a failed retry still leaves state unchanged), but not a true contradiction.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core action and its effect front-loaded before the constraints. Every sentence adds a distinct constraint the agent needs.

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 single-parameter mutation with an output schema, an agent has everything: action semantics, effect on listing, irreversibility, eligibility limits, and the failure mode. Return values are covered by the output schema and briefly echoed in the description.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains entityId and where to obtain it. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Soft-archive a team entity') plus the observable effect ('no longer appears in lists or pickers'), which cleanly separates it from create_entity, update_entity, and get_entity. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear when/when-not conditions: no restore operation exists, retrying an archived entity can fail, and built-in entities cannot be archived. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g., update_entity for reversible changes), so it is strong context but not full routing guidance.

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