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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what actually happens (records retained, object removed from registry), the built-in refusal constraint, and the return value, though it omits permission requirements and whether the archive can be reversed.

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 scoping behavior is front-loaded, which is good, but the key fact "Existing records are kept but the object disappears from the registry" is stated twice (in the opening sentence and again under "When to use"), costing space without adding 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the retention semantics and built-in restriction. For a single-parameter mutation it is nearly complete, with only reversibility/permission details left unstated.

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% with a single well-documented 'key' parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description's 'by key' and 'built-in keys are refused' merely restate what the schema documents, 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 (soft-delete/archive) and resource (custom object type), scoped by key, and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling archive tools like archive_field and archive_pipeline. An agent can identify the target of the operation without opening the 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 says when to use it ("When an admin no longer needs a custom object") and gives a concrete example. It doesn't name alternatives such as update_object or a restore path, so routing guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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