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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true), the description reveals key traits: soft-delete (archival, not erasure), preservation of score history for audit, and idempotency. These details add significant value beyond the structured fields.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a tier note. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given the simple parameter set, high annotation coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, behavioral traits, idempotency, and tier restrictions. No gaps are apparent.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear description for 'claim_id' ('Id of the claim to archive.'). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but given full schema coverage, a score 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 clearly states 'Soft-delete a claim by id', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_alert) by specifying claim. The explanation of archival behavior further clarifies the scope.

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 mentions idempotency and tier restrictions ('all paid + free tiers (sample rejected)'). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear. Some guidance on when to use other delete tools would be beneficial, but the current info is adequate.

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