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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing downstream side effects the hints cannot express: archived rows keep their data but leave default reads and search, send no reminders, and fire no workflows. This is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before calling a destructive operation.

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 action and its boolean switch, then consequences, then the read alternative. No filler and every sentence earns its place.

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 described, and the description covers the action, its scope limit, its side effects, and how to read archived rows. Nothing needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 67% and the description clarifies the effect of the `archived` boolean (true archives, false unarchives) and the 50-row ceiling. sheetId is undocumented in both places, but its meaning is inferable, and the description adds behavioral meaning beyond the schema's terse boolean note.

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 pair (archive/unarchive) plus the resource (rows of a sheet) and scope (up to 50 rows). It also names the read path (sheet.read with archived: "only"), letting an agent distinguish this mutation from the sibling read tool without opening 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?

Explains the condition that selects each direction (archived: true vs false) and routes the agent to sheet.read for reading archived rows. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance against alternatives like item.update_many, but the operational context is clear.

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