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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: archiving 'stops new sends immediately' while 'existing records stay readable', and it states the authorization constraint (owners and admins only). It stops short of saying whether the action is reversible/unarchivable.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: trigger, effect/scope of impact, and permission requirement. Front-loaded with the usage condition before the consequences.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description supplies the trigger, the blast radius, and the auth requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the single parameter circle_id is documented as coming 'from list_circles'. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (archive a circle) and immediately distinguishes it from deletion by explaining that 'existing records stay readable'. No sibling (circles.create/list/update, circles.members.remove) could be confused with this operation.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition: 'When the human is done with a circle and wants to close it down.' That is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not name a when-not case or an alternative (e.g. a delete/unarchive path), but none is visible among the sibling tools.

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