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

Beyond the destructive annotation, the description adds critical behavior: the account cannot be resumed and archiving covers the active version. It also discloses access requirements and account restrictions, though it omits edge-case behavior such as idempotency or handling of already-archived accounts.

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 short and front-loads the action and irreversibility. The access sentence is slightly telegraphic with 'keyless: subscription_required', but overall it is efficiently structured.

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, parameterized mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, irreversibility, eligibility, and access requirements. It leaves some operational details unspecified, but an agent has enough to decide whether to call it.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about book_id or expected_version, which is acceptable but not value-adding.

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 clearly states the action and resource: archive a paper account and its active version. It also differentiates behaviorally from pause/resume by saying the account cannot be resumed, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

It provides eligibility conditions such as paid, owner-only, no live orders, no model inference, and subscription access. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over pause, flatten, or other lifecycle siblings, so usage is only implied.

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