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

The annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it clarifies the operation is a soft delete, that it is reversible from the web app, and that permanent deletion is not available through MCP. This meaningfully informs the agent about the actual impact.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key behavioral constraint. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The core mutation behavior (soft delete, reversibility, no permanent delete) is covered, which is important for a destructive tool. However, the unexplained 'archived' parameter is a notable gap in a 2-parameter tool, and there is no guidance on repeated invocation or related siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not explain the 'archived' boolean parameter (e.g., archived=false for unarchiving) nor the 'keyResultId' format. Only the implicit resource is mentioned, leaving the parameters largely undocumented.

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 the specific action ('Archive') and resource ('a key result'), and distinguishes itself from read/update siblings like get_key_result and update_key_result. It does not explicitly differentiate from archive_objective, but the resource difference is obvious.

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 implied: use this to remove/hide a key result, and permanent deletion is not available through MCP. However, it doesn't state when to choose this over updating or other alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or when-not conditions beyond the deletion limitation.

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