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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: what actually gets destroyed (paired screens lose the dashboard and are removed), the Home restriction, and an explicit confirmation requirement.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the verb and its effect, then the constraint, then the caution. No filler and nothing important buried at the end.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the destructive semantics, the Home exclusion, and the confirmation requirement. What remains slightly ambiguous is whether the paired screens themselves are deleted or merely unlinked, but the operational picture is otherwise complete.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% – the schema already documents dashboardId as a uuid sourced from list_dashboards. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, 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 (archives/hides) and resource (custom dashboard), then explains the concrete effect: every screen paired to it stops showing it. This clearly separates it from update_dashboard and delete_entry, so an agent can pick it without opening other schemas.

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 a real exclusion ('Home cannot be archived') and a procedural prerequisite ('Ask the person first'), which is exactly the guidance an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool. It does not name a sibling alternative, but none is obviously needed for this operation.

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