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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — the lead moves to that state, an event is logged on it, and no notification is sent to the lead. That last point is important context an agent could not derive from the schema. It stops short of addressing re-archiving or whether the action is reversible.

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 that front-load the effect and its side effects, followed by the HTTP route. Every clause adds information; the endpoint path is mildly redundant but cheap.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important ground: what state the lead enters, that an event is recorded, and that no outbound message is sent. The unexplained callback parameters are the main remaining gap.

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 100%, so the four optional parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the comment and category ("existing archive category") but says nothing about call_back_in or scheduled_for, leaving an agent to wonder why a callback would accompany an archive.

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 lead") and immediately defines the operational effect — the lead leaves the calling queue — which no sibling name conveys. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close cousins like myphoner_mark_lead_loser or myphoner_move_lead, but an agent can infer the distinction from the state-change wording.

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 by the described effect (removal from the calling queue) rather than stated as a when-to-use rule. There is no guidance on when to archive versus marking a lead loser or moving it, and no prerequisites or caveats about archiving an already-archived lead despite idempotentHint=false.

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