archive_document

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond by clarifying the soft-delete mechanism, note about recoverability, and the high-impact warning. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations rather than merely restating them.

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 tight sentences plus a leading warning label. Every element earns its place — the high-impact warning is front-loaded, the mechanism is stated clearly, and the reversal tool is named. Zero waste.

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 single-parameter tool with a strong warning, 100% schema coverage, and a clear sibling reference, this description covers the essential context well. The high-impact flag and reversal path are the key completeness elements, both present. Minor gap: doesn't describe return/effects details, but no output schema exists to fill that — though a one-line note on what happens post-archive would add value.

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 there's only one parameter, so the schema fully documents it. The description doesn't add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, but given complete schema coverage and a single simple parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Archives an IT Glue document'. Explicitly states it's a soft delete that hides from normal views but remains recoverable, fully distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_document_section or unarchive_document.

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 names the alternative: 'Use unarchive_document to restore', giving the agent clear reversal guidance. Also states 'Confirm with the user before invoking' — a clear before-use prerequisite. Strong when/context guidance for a destructive-ish operation.

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