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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful context those fields cannot convey: data and grants are preserved, only the owner can restore, and restoration is bounded by a retention period. It stops short of naming the retention window or who may archive.

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, front-loaded on the action and its key constraint. Every clause carries information (non-deletion, owner-only restore, retention window).

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 are covered elsewhere, and the description supplies the reversibility and retention story an agent needs for risk assessment. It omits who is permitted to archive and the retention duration, minor gaps for a two-parameter tool.

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 coverage is only 50%: idempotencyKey is thoroughly documented in the schema, while sheetId carries no description. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no format, no idempotency guidance), but the one complex parameter is already well covered by structured fields, landing at the baseline.

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 and resource ("Archive a sheet") and immediately qualifies the operation as non-destructive ("without deleting its data or grants"). This implicitly separates it from sheets_archive_folder (folder scope) and sheets_delete_rows, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the non-deletion wording hints this is the reversible alternative to a destructive delete, and the owner/retention sentence describes the restore path. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. archive_folder or delete guidance, and no prerequisites for performing the archive itself.

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