Archive analytics goal

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the resulting state is 'archived', history is preserved and data is not deleted, idempotency is state-based, and it changes live tracking on the user's site. This concretely explains what destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true mean here, plus discloses a real-world side effect and zero credit cost.

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?

Four terse, front-loaded clauses: what it does, what archival means, idempotency, side effect, and cost. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (preserves history, does not delete) comes early.

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 single-required-param mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers state outcome, idempotency, side effects, and credit cost. It omits auth/permission requirements and what a success response looks like, which are minor given the annotations already carry the safety profile.

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 goalId/projectId/propertyId/projectUuid are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the :goalId path element and adds no new parameter semantics, 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 (Archive) and resource (analytics goal) and even names the underlying endpoint DELETE /api/v1/analytics/goals/:goalId. An agent can immediately separate this from analytics_create_goal and analytics_list_goals without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for choosing it: archival preserves history rather than deleting, is idempotent by state, and consumes no credits. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when *not* to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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