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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which alone would suggest irreversible loss; the description meaningfully overrides that impression by disclosing soft-delete semantics, retention, and restorability. It does not address idempotency (annotations say idempotentHint=false) or permission requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key semantic caveat, with no redundant restatement of the tool name. Each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential behavioral context (soft delete, retention, no hard delete via MCP). It omits side effects on child key results and any permission prerequisites, which would round it out.

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 50%: the archived flag is self-documented, but objectiveId has no description in either place. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and its statement that restore happens 'from the web app' is slightly at odds with the schema's archived=false restore path via MCP.

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?

'Archive an objective' is a specific verb+resource, and the description immediately narrows the meaning of 'archive' to a soft delete, which is the one thing an agent could get wrong here. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as archive_key_result and update_objective by resource and effect.

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 (call this to archive an objective) and it usefully rules out permanent deletion via MCP, but there is no explicit guidance on when to archive vs. update or delete-adjacent siblings. The restore path is mentioned only for the web app, so the agent gets no routing guidance for the 'unarchive' case.

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