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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true but say nothing about reversibility or side effects. The description adds substantial context: nothing built is deleted, only vendor support can restore, the service validates the stored name, it refuses without confirm:true, and an unconfirmed archive may still have taken effect so get_my_dataset should be re-read. This is exactly the beyond-annotation detail a destructive tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the effect and irreversibility, then confirm semantics, then the usage restriction, then the sibling routing, then the return shape. Nearly every sentence earns its place; the inline example and the settings-page/CLI equivalence are slightly redundant but defensible for a destructive, irreversible action.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({dataset_id, status}) and the recovery procedure after an ambiguous call. Given the two-parameter, high-stakes destructive surface, nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does for confirm (must be true, or the call is refused) and provides an example payload, though dataset_id's meaning is only implied by the resource description rather than spelled out. Strong compensation for the coverage gap, short of complete.

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 whole dataset) and immediately defines the scope: readers lose access, public page/unlisted link withdrawn, name freed. It names the sibling alternatives (demote_table, archive_table) so the agent can tell dataset-level retirement from table-level retirement without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to call (person you work for asked for this dataset by name) and when not to (never to clear space, retry a failed build, or tidy up), plus routes to siblings for the table-level case. This is the strongest possible when/when-not/alternative coverage.

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