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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real context the annotations cannot: pending publications are cancelled as a side effect, and already-delivered Telegram messages are unaffected. It stops short of describing what archiving does to the post's visibility or listing state.

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, zero filler, and the usage trigger is front-loaded before the side-effect and recovery details. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 one-parameter, fully annotated tool with an output schema, this covers trigger, irreversible side effect, what survives, and the undo path. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the owner-bound provenance of the postId. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond what the schema states, 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 post') plus the bundled effect ('cancel its pending publications'), which separates it from delete_publication and cancel_publication. It also names the inverse operation (restore_post), so the agent can place it in the lifecycle without opening another 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?

The trigger is explicit: 'Use when the author asks to archive a post', and the recovery path is spelled out ('Restore later with restore_post'). There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., when to prefer cancel_publication alone or delete), so it falls just short of a 5.

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