Archive saved beneficiary

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations: it explains what destruction actually means (leaves active listings, refused as a transfer destination), what is preserved (existing transfers unaffected), and that the action is reversible via re-save. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three short sentences, effect-first, each carrying distinct operational information with no redundancy or 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?

For a single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to predict consequences: effect on listings, effect on transfer validation, effect on prior transfers, and recoverability.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents beneficiaryId. The description adds no format, sourcing, or ID-semantics detail beyond it — 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 and resource ('Archive a saved beneficiary') and is unambiguously distinct from the sibling set (list_/get_/create_beneficiary). An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

Clear context for what archiving means and a note that re-saving revives the beneficiary, which implies the inverse operation (create_beneficiary). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-archive, so it stops short of a 5.

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