Archive Test Runs

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden: it discloses non-destructive behavior ('hides... without deleting'), that the endpoint is bulk, that reversal is not available through this server, and that the response is a bare boolean rather than a run snapshot. That is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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 action and its effect, then constraints and the response shape. It runs slightly long across several short paragraphs, but each one contributes a distinct fact (semantics, discoverability, reversibility, return value) with no filler.

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 one-parameter, unannotated, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers everything missing from structured data: effect, bulk nature, irreversibility, and return type. An agent can call this correctly and knows how to verify and revert.

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% and the schema itself already documents that IDs only (no names/keys) are accepted, so the description does not repeat it. It does add adjacent value by naming filter_status values on the follow-up tool, which helps the agent verify results, though nothing further is said about the test_runs parameter itself.

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 ('Archives one or more test runs') and immediately clarifies the semantics of that verb (hides from default list, does not delete). This clearly separates it from destructive siblings and from list/read tools.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance: use filter_status='archived' on list_test_runs to see archived runs, 'active' to exclude them, and states that restoring requires the Tuskr UI because no reverse action is wrapped. The boundary against alternatives is unambiguous.

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