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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description usefully qualifies that destructiveness: only the public URL and llms.txt entry are removed while the content itself is retained and republishable. That is precisely the context an agent needs before invoking a destructive-flagged tool, and it is not derivable from the annotations alone.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its removal effects, ending with the retention guarantee. Every clause carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effects, preservation, and reversibility, which is what an agent most needs. It does not address edge cases such as calling it on an already-unpublished document or whether llms.txt updates are immediate.

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%, so slug, site, and lang are already fully documented in the schema, including cross-references to list_documents and list_sites. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not above baseline.

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 (archives) applied to a specific resource (a document) and then concretely enumerates the effects: removing the public .md URL and the llms.txt entry. This clearly separates it from publish_document and update_document in the sibling set.

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?

The phrase 'can be published again' signals the reversible counterpart relationship with publish_document, giving an agent clear context for when this action applies. It stops short of an explicit 'use publish_document to restore it' routing sentence or any when-not-to-use exclusion.

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