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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful side effect: already-booked visits keep their assigned workers. It does not say whether archiving is reversible, what permission level is required, what happens to crew members or future scheduling, or whether the crew disappears from crews_list.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the side-effect caveat second — nothing wasted. The parenthetical is the only element that costs clarity without earning its space.

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?

A simple single-parameter mutation with an output schema, so return values need no explanation; the key non-obvious consequence (booked visits retain workers) is covered. Given the tool's low complexity, the definition is adequate to call it correctly.

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?

One parameter (crew_id, uuid) at 0% schema coverage. The description implicitly identifies it as the crew being archived but adds nothing about format, sourcing (e.g., from crews_list), or behavior for an invalid or already-archived id.

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 (archive a crew), which cleanly separates it from crews_list and crews_save. The parenthetical '(owner or office)' is ambiguous — it could denote a permission scope, an account-type variant, or something else — leaving a small residue of doubt about exactly what is archived.

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?

No statement of when an agent should archive a crew versus using crews_save to modify it, and no mention of an unarchive/restore path or prerequisites. The only usage-relevant signal is the implied 'archive rather than delete', which the agent must infer.

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