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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds real value with the human-confirmation requirement and the 'no open run' guard, but it never states whether archiving is reversible, what happens to the strategy's history, or what the response contains.

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 zero padding; the operation is front-loaded and the precondition and confirmation requirement follow in priority order.

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 an output schema, full parameter documentation and rich annotations, the description only needs to cover intent, preconditions and safety. It does that, but for a destructive mutation it should say whether an archived strategy can be recovered, which is the one thing an agent negotiating user confirmation would want to know.

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 each parameter already documents its source (list_paper_records, get_paper_account) and fallback behavior when omitted. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb (archive) and resource (one of the caller's paper strategies), plus a scoping precondition (no open run). It is clearly distinct from save_paper_strategy and start_paper_strategy, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it replaces or is replaced by.

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?

It gives a concrete precondition — the strategy must have no open run — and an explicit procedural requirement to confirm with the user first. It stops short of routing the agent to an alternative action (e.g., close_paper_run) when the precondition fails, so the recovery path is left to inference.

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