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

The description uses the verb 'Archive,' which is consistent with the destructiveHint annotation. It clearly signals a state-changing action, though it does not detail side effects beyond archiving. The annotation and description align, so no contradiction.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It states the action, object, and a key condition, making it easily scannable and unambiguous.

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 simple destructive operation with one parameter, the description provides enough context to understand the purpose and the required input. It does not mention the output, but that is often not necessary for an archive action, and the output schema is available separately.

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?

The only parameter, interest_pack_name, has no schema description, but the tool description adds meaning by requiring the exact public name. This helps but does not specify the format or source of the name. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates partially.

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 action (Archive), the target (one saved audience pack), and the precise scope (by its exact public name). It is distinct from sibling tools like interests_list (listing) and interests_save_fetched_pack (saving), so an agent can easily choose this for archiving.

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 description implies the user must know the exact public name, which is a useful usage condition. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or how to obtain the name (e.g., via interests_list), but the condition is sufficient for most cases.

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