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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or what happens to the mailbox upon reactivation, leaving the agent with only a generic verb.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It is concise and directly states the action, earning full marks for efficiency.

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?

While the operation is simple and the schema fully documents parameters with an output schema present, the description lacks contextual details such as when to use it (e.g., only for archived mailboxes) or any caveats (e.g., what if the mailbox is already active). It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, and both parameters are already described in the schema (mailboxId as 'Archived mailbox ID' and expiresIn with its range and optionality). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Reactivate' and the resource 'archived mailbox', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'archived.delete' and 'archived.list' which have different actions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a mailbox is already active or how it relates to creation or updating. The agent must infer usage solely from the name, which is insufficient for correct tool selection.

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