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

Annotations only indicate destructive, idempotent, and non-read-only behavior. The description adds the specific impact not present in annotations: archived journeys cannot be invoked and existing runs continue. This is valuable extra context for a destructive operation.

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 tightly written sentences: the action first, then the key consequence. No filler, no redundant restating of schema or annotations.

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 single-required-parameter archive operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and outcome: the journey is archived, future invocations stop, and running executions finish. It could add reversibility or permanence details, but the destructiveHint annotation already signals that risk.

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?

The schema already documents journey_id with 'The journey template ID to archive' and has 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat parameter details. It adds no additional parameter-level nuance beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Archive a journey') and clarifies the consequence of archiving: future invocations are blocked while existing runs continue. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'archive_journey_template', whose name overlaps, but the resource naming is still clear.

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 phrase 'cannot be invoked but existing runs continue to completion' explains the scenario where this tool applies: you want to stop new invocations without interrupting active runs. It does not explicitly name alternatives like cancel_journey or archive_journey_template, but the behavioral context is enough to guide selection.

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