essay.project.archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses the hiding effect, its application to every child sequence, and the two-step confirmation requirement. It leaves reversibility, visibility consequences, prerequisites, and the actual confirmation workflow unclear.

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 compact and puts the action and scope near the front, with little filler beyond repeating the full tool name. “Confirm two-step” is cryptic and “The list is the module code” is awkwardly phrased, so the brevity slightly reduces precision.

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 an unannotated cascading mutation with a custom confirmation parameter and no output schema, this is not complete enough to ensure correct invocation. The target and immediate effect are clear, but the critical confirmation handshake and recovery or reversal expectations are missing.

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 description compensates somewhat for 0% schema coverage by explaining that module takes a module code rather than sequence IDs. However, confirmPhase is entirely undocumented despite being central to the advertised workflow, with no accepted values, phase order, or first-call/second-call semantics.

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?

“Hides one module and every sequence under it” states a specific operation, resource, and cascading scope, while the final sentence clarifies the target identifier. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from essay.project.delete or essay.project.unarchive.

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 archive/hide wording and module-code guidance imply use for hiding an entire module rather than supplying individual sequence IDs. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no comparison with delete or unarchive, and no instructions for navigating the two confirmation steps.

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