archive_store

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

Annotations only supply openWorldHint and idempotentHint. The description adds the substantive behavioral facts annotations omit: order records are preserved for accounting, the store is hidden from the default listing, new orders stop ingesting, and the disconnect_provider flag removes fulfillment credentials. This is exactly the side-effect disclosure an agent needs.

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 scoping rule and reversibility are front-loaded in dense, efficient sentences with no redundancy. The trailing '[#b85c96]' artifact is stray noise that slightly mars otherwise tight structure.

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 when-to-use, reversibility, and flag side effects well. It omits permission/agency-scoping requirements implied by the workspace parameter, and whether the credential removal from disconnect_provider is itself irreversible.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description restates disconnect_provider with slightly more emphasis ('every connected fulfillment provider') but adds no syntax or value details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 (store), and immediately differentiates itself from delete by scoping archive to 'stores with order history'. An agent can distinguish archive_store from archive_product/archive_design and from delete_workspace without opening schemas.

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?

'use instead of delete for stores with order history' gives an explicit selection rule and implies the complementary case (no order history -> delete). It also names the reverse tool unarchive_store, so the agent knows the recovery path. Nothing is left to inference.

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