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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals the termination of member terms prospectively and labels the action as 'Terminal'. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description enriches the agent's understanding of consequences.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action, consequence, and required parameters. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, destructive), the description covers the basic purpose and required inputs. However, it omits expected outcomes (e.g., success/failure), error conditions, or effects on related entities, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only states that community_id and profile_id are required, without explaining their roles or constraints. No additional semantics like format, source, or validation rules are provided.

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 clearly states the action ('Archive') and the resource ('partner profile'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_partner_profile, update_partner_profile, etc. The phrase 'ends every member's terms prospectively' adds specific scope.

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 description specifies required parameters ('Requires community_id + profile_id') and notes the tool is 'Terminal', implying irreversible action. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., update_partner_profile) or provide contextual cues for appropriate usage scenarios.

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