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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the baseline is lower, yet the description adds real value beyond them: exactly what becomes invisible (profile, search, readers' view), that the page stops working, and that nothing is lost because unarchive_list restores it. This reconciles the 'destructive' hint with an actually reversible operation.

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 compact sentences: the first front-loads the action and its consequences, the second handles reversibility and the confirmation requirement. No filler and nothing redundant with structured fields.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the visible effects, reversibility, and the human-confirmation requirement. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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% for the single 'list' parameter, which already documents slug/title/id matching and the exact-one-match failure mode. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 one of the person's lists') and spells out the concrete effects: removal from profile, search, reader view, and page breakage. The mention of unarchive_list as the reversal implicitly separates it from the one-way delete_list sibling, though that contrast is never made explicit by name.

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?

Provides an interaction precondition ('Confirm with the person first') and implies when the tool is appropriate via its reversibility framing, but never states when to choose archiving over delete_list or other list-mutating siblings. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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