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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: what archiving does to the sequence and its contacts, the master-key auth requirement, and per-request cost. It does not cover reversibility or timing, but given the annotation coverage this is a strong disclosure.

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 operative content is two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect. The pricing block is boilerplate but is short, clearly delimited, and carries genuine cost information.

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 single-parameter call with an output schema, the description covers the effect, auth requirement, and cost, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. It stops short of stating whether the change is reversible or how in-flight sends are handled.

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?

Only one parameter (sequence_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond what is structured, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

Specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('a sequence'), plus a clarifying gloss of what archiving does ('marks it inactive and finishes contacts'). That effect does implicitly distinguish it from the abort sibling, but no sibling is named, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Gives an important prerequisite ('Requires a master API key') and describes the outcome, which implies when this is appropriate. However, it never states when to choose archive over the closely related abort or approve endpoints, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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