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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail: the mutation is limited to the job row and does not propagate to linked postings, applications, or interview plans. This precise scope disclosure goes 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and immediately clarifies the scope. No wasted words; every clause adds meaning.

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?

The description, combined with the annotations (destructive, idempotent, not read-only), provides a clear picture of the tool's behavior and side effects. The absence of an output schema means return-value explanation is unnecessary. However, the lack of parameter documentation is a minor gap, though the parameters appear standard and the operation is simple.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about any of the three parameters (job_id, request_id, idempotency_key). The agent is left with only parameter names and types, with no guidance on required values or optional semantics. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('one Job row only'), and explicitly delimits the scope by noting that linked job postings, applications, and interview plans are not mutated. This clearly distinguishes the tool from other job-related operations and from archive tools that cascade to related entities.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you only want to archive the job row itself and not affect linked records. It indirectly tells the agent that if broader archiving is needed, other tools would be required, though it does not name specific alternatives.

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