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

Strongly exceeds the annotations: it discloses reversibility, that referencing audiences keep their composition and record count, and that a creator scope is required. The one tension is 'Always safe and fully reversible' versus destructiveHint=true — not a true contradiction since archiving does mutate state and is reversible, but the framing softens the hint rather than explaining why it is set.

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 core content is well front-loaded, but the scope requirement is stated twice — 'Requires the creator scope. Requires 'creator' scope.' — which is a visible duplication artifact suggesting template concatenation. Trimming that redundancy would tighten an otherwise efficient description.

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?

With an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs to call correctly: mutation semantics, reversibility, side-effect boundaries, and auth scope. Only the duplicated scope line keeps it from being fully clean.

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 the schema already documents both segment_id and the restore boolean. The description's 'or restore an archived one back to active' reinforces the restore semantics but adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs specific verbs (archive, restore) with a specific resource (segment) and states the exact effect: hidden from the default catalog and new audience compositions, with the inverse restore behavior spelled out. It also explicitly separates this operation from permanent deletion, so an agent can distinguish it from the destructive alternative without opening a 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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance (archive vs. restore via the same tool) and an explicit when-not boundary by contrasting it with permanent deletion. The only shortfall is that the alternative is described conceptually rather than by a sibling tool name, so the agent isn't routed to a concrete other tool.

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