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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only. The description adds useful context by stating the consequence of archiving and that the call returns an operation result or error, though it does not discuss reversibility or unarchive_audience.

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 followed immediately by return behavior and the key consequence. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 low-complexity destructive operation with rich schema descriptions and destructiveHint already present, the description covers the essential consequence and return behavior. It could be stronger by clarifying reversibility or pointing to unarchive_audience, but it is broadly complete.

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%, and both parameters are documented there, including the name-resolution fallback. The description adds little beyond saying 'by ID,' so the baseline 3 applies.

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 custom audience by ID.' It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast with the obvious reverse operation, unarchive_audience, and 'by ID' is slightly narrower than the schema's name-or-ID resolution.

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 usage context is implied by the stated effect, that archived audiences are no longer available for new targeting. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose archival versus alternatives, nor on choosing the name parameter versus custom_audience_id beyond what the schema says.

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