Archive Access Group

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a useful behavioral fact ('Changes community state') and the confirm gating requirement, but says nothing about reversibility, side effects on members, or required permissions.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no padding. The second sentence is slightly generic boilerplate ('the user-requested action'), but the definition is appropriately sized.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the snippet is minimally adequate: the agent knows to pass confirm=true. It omits reversibility, effects on access group members, and any prerequisite context, so it is complete only at the bare minimum.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents account, confirm, and access_group_id. The description restates the confirm=true requirement, which is a mild reinforcement but adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides; 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Archive Access Group'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not differentiate from close siblings like unarchive_access_group, update_access_group, or delete-like operations, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 only usage guidance is the confirm=true requirement tied to 'the user-requested action,' which is really a precondition rather than a when-to-use statement. There is no mention of when to archive versus unarchive or update a group, leaving the agent to infer the choice from the tool name alone.

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