archive_deployment

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden and delivers: it discloses soft-delete behavior ('stops treating it as active but does not permanently remove its history') and auth requirements ('Returns 403 on non-Enterprise Portkey plans'). This is exactly the kind of context the annotations do not provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The content is dense and front-loaded, but 'Enterprise-gated' is repeated verbatim at the start and end — a redundant sentence that fails the 'every sentence earns its place' test. Minor trimming would make this concise rather than merely short.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is complete: it states the action, the prerequisite, the post-effect on the record, and access restrictions. Return values are covered by the output schema, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100% — the id parameter already has a description ('Deployment UUID to archive'). The tool description reinforces that id is a deployment UUID and implicitly sources it from get_deployment, adding marginal context beyond the schema, which matches the baseline-3 expectation for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair — 'Archive a registered Gateway deployment by UUID' — and clearly distinguishes archival from the delete_* siblings by disclosing soft-delete semantics. Naming get_deployment as the prerequisite further anchors what this tool is for within the large sibling set.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use get_deployment first to confirm the target,' which tells the agent the correct precondition. The soft-delete explanation also implies when not to use it (when permanent removal is required), though no alternative tool is explicitly named as a contrasting option.

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