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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a key side-effect boundary ("Forms made from it are unchanged"), but says nothing about reversibility (can an archived template be restored?), required permissions, or idempotency for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the primary effect is stated first and the caveat second. 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 needn't be explained, and the single-parameter surface is simple. Still, a mutation tool with no annotations leaves gaps on restoration behavior and permission requirements that the description could have closed.

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?

There is only one required parameter, form_template_id, and the description's focus on the template makes the target unambiguous. The schema describes nothing (0% coverage) but a single obvious identifier needs little elaboration, so this is close to adequate.

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 gives a specific verb (archive) and resource (form template) plus the effective outcome: the template is no longer offered. That distinguishes it from forms_saveTemplate and forms_listTemplates without naming siblings, but the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

It implies when to use it — retiring a template without touching forms already created from it — which is a useful routing hint versus a destructive delete. However, it names no alternatives or prerequisites and doesn't say when not to archive.

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