archive_document

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the operation is a 'soft delete' that hides from normal views but remains recoverable, and warns of 'HIGH-IMPACT' with a user-confirmation requirement. No contradiction.

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 entire guidance is conveyed in one compact sentence with a warning prefix. Important scoping (recoverability) and the alternative action are front-loaded ahead of the procedural detail. No filler.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, and the annotations carry the safety profile (destructive, read-only, idempotency). The description covers purpose, effect, alternatives, and a mandatory confirmation step. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (document_id), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, but no extra meaning is needed. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Archives') and resource ('IT Glue document'), and clarifies the nature of the action ('soft delete — hides it from normal views but keeps it recoverable'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'unarchive_document' by explicitly naming the reverse operation.

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 description explicitly names the alternative tool (unarchive_document) for restoration, and provides a clear condition for invoking this tool ('Confirm with the user before invoking'). The soft-delete clarification also guides when not to use it (when permanent deletion is desired).

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