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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose that archived customers are hidden from lists but their history is retained, which is non-obvious behavioral context. It does not state permissions required, whether the operation is reversible/idempotent, or what happens to related records (jobs, invoices).

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and using a parenthetical to convey the two key side effects. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

For a 2-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the state semantics reasonably but leaves the boolean mapping, default behavior, and return/error information unaddressed. An agent could invoke it, but might guess wrong about which value triggers which operation.

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%, so the description must compensate. The `archived` boolean is never explicitly mapped (true = archive, false = restore) and its default isn't stated; only the vague 'or bring one back' hints at it. `customer_id` is only documented by its uuid format in the schema, with no mention of where to obtain it.

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 (archive) and resource (customer), and adds what archiving actually means: hidden from lists, history kept. It also covers the inverse operation. It doesn't distinguish itself from nearby siblings like customers_update or customers_merge, which an agent might reasonably confuse with archiving a customer.

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 phrase 'or bring one back' implies the dual use is driven by the `archived` flag, giving implied usage. But there is no explicit guidance on when to archive versus update/merge a customer, and no statement of prerequisites or consequences beyond the parenthetical.

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