archive_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait that everything is retained ("while retaining every file and record"). However, it is silent on permissions, reversibility/restore path, and whether archiving is idempotent — meaningful gaps for a mutation with six required parameters.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the effect clause ("while retaining every file and record") is placed immediately after the action. Efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a six-required-parameter mutation with no annotations, the definition omits parameter semantics, auth/prerequisite context, and restore behavior — insufficient for an agent to call it reliably.

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?

Six required parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no enums; the schema gives only titles like "Reason" and "Request Id." The description explains none of them — not project_root scope, not asset_type/asset_id identity, not version format, not the role of request_id or reason. It adds nothing over the structured field names.

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+resource ("Archive ... version") and narrows it with "unpromoted," which implicitly separates it from the sibling promote_version. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it stops short of a 5, but the action and subject are 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?

The qualifier "unpromoted" implies the condition under which archiving applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to promote_version or any alternative in a 28-tool sibling set. The agent must infer routing.

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