aethis_archive_ruleset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by stating the post-condition (preserved but excluded from /decide) and the irreversibility ('This is permanent').

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the effect and the permanence warning. No 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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations that already carry the destructive/idempotent flags, the description covers action, consequence, and irreversibility. Only the lack of explicit usage routing keeps it short of full completeness.

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 coverage is 100% and the single ruleset_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no format or semantic detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('ruleset'), letting an agent distinguish it from siblings such as aethis_archive_project and aethis_list_rulesets without opening any 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?

The description implies when this is appropriate by explaining that archived rulesets are excluded from /decide resolution, but it never states explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions or names an alternative (e.g., deleting or updating instead).

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