pvsyst_archive_variant

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 safety constraints: do not archive the last variant, use a SHA guard, and require confirm=true. However, it omits what archiving does to the variant, whether it is reversible, permission requirements, and response behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief, though the abbreviation 'VC' and compressed phrasing reduce immediate clarity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, four parameters, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It covers the key preconditions but leaves parameter meanings, permissions, reversibility, and return behavior unexplained.

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 explain the four parameters. It only hints at confirm and expected_sha256 via 'SHA guard' and 'confirm=true', leaving project and variant undocumented and not clarifying the SHA parameter's exact role.

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 (VC/variant), plus a clear precondition that another variant must remain. The abbreviation 'VC' is slightly less clear than 'variant', but the tool name and condition make the purpose unambiguous.

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 an implied usage condition: archive only when at least one other variant remains, and with confirm=true. It does not explicitly compare against pvsyst_archive_project or pvsyst_restore_variant, nor does it state when not to use this tool beyond the remaining-variant constraint.

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