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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds meaningful context: deletion is permanent, a model-supplied confirm flag alone cannot authorize it, and unverified clients hit a website confirmation step. It does not describe reversibility of archive/restore or any rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the safety rule for the destructive branch. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction with no repetition of the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still references the returned website confirmation link. For a destructive 6-parameter tool this is nearly complete, with the main gap being the concurrency/idempotency semantics of expected_rev and request_id.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate more. It ties id/expected_rev/request_id loosely together ('using its revision and request ID'), but never explains that expected_rev is an optimistic-concurrency token or that request_id is an idempotency key, which is exactly the missing meaning an agent needs.

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 states the specific actions (archive, restore, permanent delete) and the resource (an owned history entry) in the first sentence. It is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like aimixer_history and aimixer_history_search, though it never names them explicitly.

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 concrete when-to-use rules for the dangerous path: ask the user first, pass confirm=true with the exact id, and unverified clients must follow the returned website confirmation link. It does not differentiate archive vs. restore conditions or explain prerequisites for the required revision/request ID, so guidance is strong but incomplete.

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