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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: pending publications are cancelled, already-delivered Telegram messages survive, and the action is reversible via restore_post. That is exactly the destruction/retention detail an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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 with zero filler; the trigger condition is front-loaded, followed by effect and recovery path. Nothing repeats the name or title.

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. The description covers side effects, retention behavior, and the undo path, which is everything an agent needs to invoke this destructive tool 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 0%, and the description never mentions the single required postId parameter or its format/constraints (1-128 chars). The name is largely self-evident, but the description does nothing to compensate for the documentation gap.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (archive a post) plus its side effect (cancel pending publications), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling restore_post. An agent can route to it without opening any 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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ("when the author asks to archive a post") and points to the inverse operation via restore_post. It does not contrast against other removal-adjacent siblings such as cancel_publication or delete_publication, so the when-not guidance is incomplete.

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