archive_account

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true; the description adds genuinely non-obvious context by clarifying the operation is a soft archive that preserves postings, which tempers the destructive hint. It still omits whether the account remains usable in new postings and whether the change is reversible via unarchive_account.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus a parenthetical that earns its place by disambiguating soft vs hard deletion. No filler, though the parenthetical shorthand is terse enough that it verges on under-specification.

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 two-parameter state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers the core effect and retention behavior but leaves the agent guessing about parameter meaning, permission requirements, and post-conditions (can the account still be posted to or reported on).

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the two required parameters, yet it says nothing about accountId or workspaceId — not even tenant scoping or whether the accountId must be active/non-system. The names are largely self-explanatory, which keeps this above a 1.

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 an account), so an agent can distinguish it from delete_account, update_account and unarchive_account without opening a schema. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

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 parenthetical 'soft; the account keeps its postings' implies the archive-vs-delete distinction and gives a reason to prefer this over delete_account, but the description never states when to use this tool, what prerequisites apply (e.g. open items, active postings), or that unarchive_account is the escape hatch.

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