pvsyst_archive_component

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is reversible, that an archive directory is the destination, that confirmation is gated, and that referencing projects cause rejection. It omits what error surface the reference check returns and whether the archive is workspace-scoped or global.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the bracketed category prefix and the safety requirement are front-loaded so the agent reads the constraint before the action.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, yet the description covers reversibility, destination, gating, and failure conditions, which is enough to invoke correctly. The missing component_type vocabulary is the only real gap for a mutation tool.

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 must compensate. It clarifies 'confirm' as a required safety gate and constrains 'filename' to unreferenced components, but 'component_type' has no enum and no explanation of accepted values, leaving one of three parameters semantically thin.

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: reversibly remove an unreferenced workspace component to a .mcp-archive location. The component scope is clear, which implicitly separates it from pvsyst_archive_project and pvsyst_restore_archived_component, though it never names those siblings.

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 concrete preconditions: the component must be unreferenced by workspace PRJ/VC files, and confirm=true is required. The alternative restore path is not referenced, so an agent must infer which tool undoes this, but the when-to-use conditions are otherwise explicit.

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