yardstick_interview_plans_archiveArchive one interview plan. Already-archived plans succeed without a write. A plan still attached to a job is refused — detach it from the job first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No | ||
| interview_plan_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that archiving an already-archived plan is a no-op (no write), and that plans attached to a job are refused. This is valuable behavioral context since the annotations only provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint. The contradiction check: annotations say destructiveHint=true, description does not contradict.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence provides essential information. No fluff at all.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (simple archive operation), the description covers the key edge cases (idempotent success, job attachment restriction). No output schema exists, but that's fine for an archive action. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide and call the tool correctly.
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?
The schema has 3 parameters, but the description doesn't explain them beyond the main required one. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds minimal value for parameters like request_id and idempotency_key — but these are probably standard and may be inferred from context.
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 clearly states the action (archive), the resource (interview plan), and the primary behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like unarchive and modify_active by focusing on the archive action, making it easy for an agent to identify the correct tool among the many interview plan tools.
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 description implies when to use this tool — when you need to archive a plan, and explicitly notes the condition that blocks archiving (plan still attached to a job) and how to resolve it. It does not explicitly reference sibling alternatives like unarchive, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.