Archive Profile Field

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. The description adds the confirm=true requirement, a genuine behavioral constraint not in the annotations, but adds little else about reversibility or what 'changes community state' entails.

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, appropriately sized and front-loaded, but the opening sentence is pure title repetition and earns no place. The confirm hint is useful; the rest is 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 destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description gives the essential confirm precondition. However, it never states what archiving actually does to the field or whether it is reversible, leaving an agent to infer the effect from the name alone.

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 all three parameters (account, confirm, profile_field_id) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of confirm=true merely duplicates the schema's own description rather than adding new meaning.

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 first sentence is the tool title restated verbatim ('Archive Profile Field'), which is tautological. It does not explain what archiving a profile field means (e.g., hides it from the profile while preserving data) nor distinguish it from siblings like delete_profile_field or unarchive_profile_field.

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 guidance is the confirm=true precondition for 'the user-requested action.' There is no when-to-use/when-not, no mention of the delete or unarchive alternatives among the siblings, and no prerequisites such as permissions.

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