Archives a paywall

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 the confirmation gate and notes it "changes community state," but does not say whether the action is reversible (unarchive_paywall exists) or what specifically is affected, so the added value is modest.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded and no padding. The phrase "changes community state" is slightly vague filler relative to the concrete confirm requirement that follows, but overall it is tight.

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 full annotation coverage, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the key operational requirement (explicit confirmation). It omits reversibility and any mention of the archive/unarchive pairing, which would have made it complete.

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%, including a clear definition for confirm and the note that account selects credentials rather than a community ID. The description merely restates the confirm=true requirement, adding no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ("Archives a paywall"), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does not distinguish this from close siblings such as unarchive_paywall, delete_paywall, or publish_paywall, so the agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

"Requires confirm=true for the user-requested action" implies the tool should only be invoked when the user explicitly asked to archive, which is useful implied guidance. It never names an alternative (unarchive_paywall, delete_paywall) or states exclusions, so the when-to-use versus sibling logic is left to inference.

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