archive_deployment

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it explains that the record is soft-deleted, that active status is stopped but history is preserved (consistent with destructiveHint=false), and that non-Enterprise plans receive a 403. Auth gating and side-effect scope are exactly what an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with every sentence carrying weight except the duplicated 'Enterprise-gated.' phrase, which appears both at the opening and near the end. Minor redundancy keeps it from a 5.

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 mutation with an output schema already defined, the description covers the prerequisite lookup, the gating requirement, the error condition, and the reversibility of the effect. Nothing an agent needs in order to call 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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Deployment UUID to archive'. The description's 'by UUID' phrasing reinforces the identifier format but adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific resource ('a registered Gateway deployment') plus the identifier form ('by UUID'). This is clearly distinct from update_deployment, get_deployment, and register_deployment in the sibling list, which only read or modify a deployment.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to call get_deployment first to confirm the target, and the soft-delete semantics distinguish this from a permanent removal path. It stops short of stating when NOT to archive (e.g., when traffic is still routed to the deployment), so it falls one step short of a full 5.

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