create_archive_rule

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

Annotations already flag it as a write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the rule is created INACTIVE (implying a separate activation step) and retain_references is immutable after creation. That is genuinely useful, though the openWorld/rate-limit implications are unspecified.

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 with zero filler, and the core constraint (inactive, requires existing policy) is front-loaded. The [Write] tag is a compact, useful signal.

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 6-parameter create tool with no output schema and very low schema description coverage, the description leaves required inputs like condition and auto_rearchive unexplained. Adequate only at a minimum-viable level.

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 only 17%, so the description should compensate but it mainly restates retain_references (already documented in the schema) and says nothing about condition syntax, auto_rearchive meaning, or policy_sys_id sourcing. Minimal added value over the schema.

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 names a specific verb+resource (create an archive rule) and pins the scope (inactive, under an existing Data Management Policy). It does not explicitly differentiate from create_destroy_rule or create_cleanup_rule, so the sibling distinction is left implicit.

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 implies usage context by requiring an existing policy and notes a creation-time-only parameter, but it never says when to choose this over create_destroy_rule / create_cleanup_rule or how activation works afterward (set_archive_rule_active).

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