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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that files are retained with full version history for audit, that the bucket mirror is cleaned up only if published, and that the public /s/{share_token} route returns 404. It stops short of stating reversibility/restore path or permission requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the primary action and its immediate scoping effect are front-loaded, and the follow-on retention/404 details come second.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the important side effects of a mutation. It omits whether the archive is reversible or what a restore would require, which is the one meaningful gap for a destructive-adjacent operation with no annotations.

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% for the single file_id parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (archive) applied to a specific resource (a shared file), and details the scope: exclusion from active lists plus bucket-mirror cleanup. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like file_unpublish or file_version_delete without opening either schema.

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 implies when archive is appropriate by describing its effects, but never explicitly contrasts it with the closest alternatives (file_unpublish, file_version_delete) or states when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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