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

Discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: archiving hides from pickers, fails future booking confirms, honors existing bookings, strands pending requests. Annotations readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false align with description; idempotentHint=true is supported.

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 sentences: first states the core purpose, the second lists requirements and consequences. No wasted words, front-loaded 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 simple tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, prerequisites, and required inputs. It could mention idempotency explicitly, but not essential given annotations.

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%, so description compensates by naming the three required parameters (community_id, space_id, status). However, parameter names are self-explanatory, and the description adds no further detail on constraints like minLength-maxLength or enum values beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states the verb (Archive or re-activate) and the resource (venue Space). Distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_partner_profile, update_space, etc., as it specifically toggles space status.

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?

Provides context: administrator-only, requires specific IDs and status. Explains effects on future and existing bookings. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but implies that for other space modifications, use update_space.

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