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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is conveyed structurally. The description adds only the ownership constraint ('belonging to your team') and says nothing about reversibility, side effects on campaigns/pitches referencing the profile, or auth requirements. Given a destructive mutation, this is a meaningful gap.

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 sentence with zero filler, and the verb is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere rather than being deliberate 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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotation-level disclosure of effects, the description should state what archiving does to the profile and whether it can be undone, plus how to source the id. None of that is present, so an agent calling this correctly is relying mostly on the tool name.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that 'id' is the internal profile identifier or how to obtain it (e.g., via list_profiles), leaving an agent to infer it.

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 ('Archive') and resource ('profile'), so an agent knows the core action. The scope qualifier 'belonging to your team' adds tenancy context. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling 'unarchive_profile' or clarify how archiving differs from 'delete_template'-style deletion, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as 'unarchive_profile' or any listing tool to find the profile first. Usage is only implied by the tool name. The description never names a sibling or a precondition.

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