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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: the side effect that every paired screen stops showing the dashboard, the hard restriction on Home, and the requirement to confirm with the person first. It does not state permission requirements or reversibility, but the disclosed blast radius goes well beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its effect front-loaded ahead of the constraint and the confirmation cue. Every clause carries 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 no explanation, and the description covers the mutation's side effects, the key constraint, and the required confirmation. Given one simple parameter and full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema (including the "from list_dashboards" provenance note) fully documents dashboardId; the description adds no format or sourcing detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Archives a custom dashboard") and clarifies the semantics of archiving as hiding rather than a hard delete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as update_dashboard or archive_topic, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous and an agent can identify the operation immediately.

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 concrete usage conditions: "Home cannot be archived" is an explicit when-not rule and "Ask the person first" is a confirmation precondition. It stops short of naming alternative tools for the cases it excludes, but the guidance is clear and actionable rather than implied.

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