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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavior: the operation is reversible via archived=false, requires owner/office permission, and preserves quote lines that referenced the item. It does not describe the return value or how archived items appear in listings, but the core mutation semantics are covered.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the restore condition and side effect. No wasted words.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, reversibility, permissions, and quote-line preservation. It could be more complete by stating the default for archived and what happens to the item in price book listings, but it is largely sufficient.

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. It explains the meaning of archived=false (restore) but does not clarify the default for archived or add meaning to item_id beyond its name and UUID format in the schema. Partial compensation warrants a 3.

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 price book item, with the inverse operation (unarchive via archived=false) explicitly named. This clearly distinguishes it from pricebook_saveItem and pricebook_list.

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 two usage modes (archive vs. restore) and notes the required permission level (owner or office). It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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