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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent, not read-only), the description adds valuable behavioral context: existing runs are unaffected because they retain their own copies, and the Courier Recommended set is protected from archiving. This helps an agent anticipate side effects and avoid an invalid invocation.

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 no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the two behavior-relevant caveats follow immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter archive tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it states what happens, why it's safe for existing runs, and the one prohibited target. An agent has enough information to decide when to use it and how to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter device_set_id, including its format hint (pvs_...). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable since the schema fully documents the required input.

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 states the action clearly: 'Archive a preview device set.' This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from related siblings like create_preview_device_set, replace_preview_device_set, get_preview_device_set, and list_preview_device_sets. The first sentence alone makes 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 description gives clear context: runs that used the set keep their own copy, so archiving is safe for historical data. It also gives a direct when-not condition ('The Courier Recommended set cannot be archived'). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the operation is self-explanatory and the constraints are practical.

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