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

The annotations already carry idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, lowering the description's burden. The description adds useful context by stating that archiving affects 'all associated messages', not just the request. It does not explicitly mention irreversibility or post-archive effects, but the annotation coverage mitigates that gap.

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 a single 12-word sentence with a clear verb-object structure and no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to quickly 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?

With one well-documented parameter and annotations declaring destructive and idempotent behavior, the description covers the operation's scope adequately. It lacks an explicit note about irreversibility or return value, but this is a simple operation and the schema plus annotations fill most gaps.

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 documents the sole parameter request_id with a clear description ('The request ID (requestId returned from /send)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description only rephrases 'by request ID' and adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Archive'), a resource ('a send request'), and the scope ('all its associated messages'), with the lookup method ('by request ID'). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling archive_* tools that target journeys, templates, notifications, and preferences, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. It does not tell an agent to prefer this tool over related message tools like cancel_message or resend_message, nor when not to use it. The only usage signal is the inherent action of archiving, requiring the agent to infer applicability.

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