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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real behavioral detail: the '(owner or office)' permission requirement, and that the operation is reversible via archived=false. It does not explain what archiving actually does to references, listings, or downstream data.

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 tight sentence, with the primary action front-loaded and the restore instruction following. Nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter toggle with a required id, the description is minimally adequate: it covers the action and the reversal. But with no annotations and no output schema, the mutation's side effects and reversibility semantics (what archiving hides, whether data is preserved) are left implicit.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It effectively documents the archived boolean (false restores, implying true archives), but says nothing about template_id beyond the param name, which is a simple uuid and largely self-evident.

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 (quote template), and additionally clarifies the reverse operation via archived=false. An agent can immediately distinguish this from templates_save and templates_list without opening schemas.

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 clause 'or bring it back with archived false' tells the agent how to unarchive, which is genuinely useful. However, it never states when to archive vs. when to use templates_save or other alternatives, nor any preconditions beyond the parenthetical permission note.

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