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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase "using its current revision" usefully implies optimistic concurrency (the call is tied to a specific revision), but the description never says whether archiving is reversible, what happens on a revision mismatch, or what permissions are required.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the verb first. Its brevity is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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 destructive, non-read-only mutation with two undocumented required parameters, the description omits reversibility, failure behavior on stale revisions, and its relationship to delete_document. The existence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but the behavioral gaps remain significant.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It hints that expectedRevision means the document's current revision, but gives no format, no explanation of what happens when it doesn't match, and never mentions the id parameter at all.

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 ("Archive a document"), so the action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the closely related sibling delete_document, leaving the agent to guess whether archive is a softer/reversible alternative to deletion.

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 guidance on when to archive versus delete_document, nor any prerequisite (ownership, permissions, document state) for archiving. The agent must infer the entire selection context from the verb alone.

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