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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns with those. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotations—it does not mention irreversibility, soft-delete semantics, or what happens to the notification template after archiving.

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 one tight sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and selection mechanism are all present and front-loaded, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple and the annotations cover the destructive profile, but the description still leaves gaps: no return/output information, no postcondition details, and no differentiation among the many archive_* siblings. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and the parameter description already states the notification template ID is to be archived. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics, so the 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, 'Archive', and a clear resource, 'notification template', with the selection method 'by ID'. This distinguishes it from other archive_* siblings such as archive_journey_template or archive_routing_strategy without opening their schemas.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like archive_journey_template or archive_request. The description states only the action and resource; no when-not conditions, prerequisites, or alternative references are provided.

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