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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to re-state those traits. It adds genuine behavioral context by warning that archived templates cannot be sent, which is not present in the annotations or schema. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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 two short sentences with the action and scope front-loaded, followed by the most important behavioral consequence. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter archive operation with no output schema, the description plus the fully documented input schema provides enough context to call the tool safely and correctly. It could be slightly richer by mentioning whether archiving is reversible or how it relates to siblings, but nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both journey_id and notification_id already have meaningful descriptions in the input schema. The tool description only reinforces that the notification is journey-scoped and does not add new parameter-level meaning, so the schema-driven baseline of 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 ('Archive') and identifies the resource as 'a journey-scoped notification template,' which clearly differentiates it from siblings like archive_journey and archive_notification. It also states the practical consequence ('Archived templates cannot be sent'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 'journey-scoped' qualifier implies this tool is for notification templates owned by a journey, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., using archive_notification for standalone templates). Usage guidance is therefore more implied than explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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