pvsyst_archive_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key safety behavior: hash matching before archiving and mandatory confirmation. It does not explain reversibility, permission requirements, mismatch handling, or what archive actually does to the project state.

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 definition is a single dense sentence with no filler. Category, operation, limit, precondition, and confirmation requirement are all front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 destructive project-level operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested parameter object, the description covers the core precondition and safety gate. It still leaves gaps around expected_files structure, failure behavior, and post-archive state.

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 explains that 'expected_files' participates in hash matching and that 'confirm=true' is required, which adds real meaning, but it does not document the nested map format, project identifier expectations, or edge cases.

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 gives a specific verb and scope: archive up to 128 PRJ/VC members. The '[Projects & Variants]' label and member limit help distinguish it from the sibling pvsyst_archive_variant, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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?

It gives an implied precondition ('after matching every hash') and notes 'confirm=true', which helps an agent understand required setup. However, it does not say when to choose this over pvsyst_archive_variant or pvsyst_restore_project_archive, nor does it describe exclusions.

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