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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it explains that stopping a machine DESTROYS running process state, that a replay no-ops on rows yet is 'not idempotent end to end', and that restoration keeps project + history. This is exactly the beyond-annotation context that prevents misuse.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the reversibility caveat before the operational consequences. Every sentence (slot freeing, process destruction, replay semantics, ownership) carries distinct load with no filler.

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 mutation with an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), the description covers what is destroyed, what is retained, restoration path, idempotency, and error behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden; it adds that the key is owner-scoped and that a project not in the workspace returns 404. It does not describe the project_id's format or how to obtain it, leaving a small gap for a single required identifier.

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+resource ('Archive a project') and immediately frames it as a reversible shelve, distinguishing it from permanent removal. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (delete_project), so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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 an explicit when-to-use rule ('preferable to delete_project unless the project must be gone') plus the conditions under which the operation applies (owner-scoped, 404 for out-of-workspace projects). The alternative sibling is named with the condition that selects it.

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