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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the concrete behavioral side effects: referencing sends fail until restored with unarchive_template, and the template name stays reserved meanwhile. This gives the agent real operational understanding of the action.

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?

Each sentence is compact and informative, covering the action, effects, and user-facing guidance. No filler words, and the most important details are placed early.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description addresses the action, consequences, restoration path, and a caution for production usage. No output schema is needed, and the required context is covered.

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?

The input schema already provides a full description for templateId and the schema description coverage is 100%. The assistant description does not add additional parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb and resource—'Archive a template'—and further pins it down with the raw endpoint and write scope. The reference to unarchive_template clearly separates it from the restoring sibling.

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?

Provides clear context for when this should be used carefully ('Confirm with the user first if it may be in production use') and explains the main consequence: sends that reference the template will fail until restored. It could more explicitly contrast when to choose archive versus unarchive, but the context is strong.

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