archive_design

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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the description carries the important behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses reversibility ('Reversible with restore_design') and non-destructiveness toward dependent products ('never touches products that already use the design'). It does not mention auth/permission requirements or whether the archived design's data is retained elsewhere, leaving a small gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then progressively adds reversibility, safety, and sibling routing; every sentence earns its place. Slightly marred by the stray '[#16a475]' token trailing the text, which adds noise.

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 reversible mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, how to undo it, what it does not affect, and how to choose it over siblings. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description adds no format or syntax detail beyond naming the operation. It does hint at the list_my_designs filter semantics, but that is for a sibling tool. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Archive a design') plus the resulting scope effect ('stops showing in the default gallery listing'), which distinguishes it from restore_design and delete_design named in the same text. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('the right way to retire an unwanted or orphan design'), when to prefer alternatives ('Prefer it over delete_design unless the design must be removed permanently'), and how to find targets ('Find orphan designs first with list_my_designs(on_products=false)'). Routing is fully specified.

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