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

With destructiveHint=true already in annotations, the description correctly reinforces this with 'irreversible.' It also adds the non-live constraint, which is behavioral context not present in annotations. No contradiction. It could have explained the result of attempting to delete a live group, but the added irreversibility and condition go beyond the annotations.

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 with no fluff, front-loaded with the main action. The only minor issue is the inconsistent use of 'archive' vs. 'delete' which slightly mars clarity, but overall it is concise and structured well.

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 single-parameter delete with destructiveHint=true, the description covers irreversibility and a key precondition. However, it does not explain what happens when a live group is targeted (e.g., error or no-op), and the archive/delete ambiguity leaves the exact behavior unclear. Without an output schema, a brief note on success/failure would strengthen completeness, but it is mostly adequate.

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% – the groupId is fully described in the schema as 'Policy group ID.' The description adds no extra parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 opens with 'Archive a policy group,' a clear verb+resource, and distinguishes this from the create/get/list/reorder/update siblings. However, 'Archive' and 'deleted' are used interchangeably, which creates slight ambiguity about whether this is a soft or hard delete, though 'irreversible' suggests the latter. The purpose is clear overall.

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?

States a specific precondition: 'Only non-live groups can be deleted.' This tells the agent when the tool can be used and implies a failure case for live groups. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the condition is a useful usage guideline. No mention of when not to use or alternatives, but the constraint is sufficient for a simple delete op.

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