ClockNext: archive outcome

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true) by explaining what exactly is kept (outcome, steps, history), what is affected (new plans only), reversibility, and that it's not a delete. It adds context about the soft-archive semantics without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Despite being multi-sentence, every sentence contributes essential information: the operation, what's preserved, what's affected, reversibility, and exclusions. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (soft archive, reversible, with side effects), the description covers all necessary context: what happens, what doesn't happen, how to reverse, and when to use. With no output schema, it doesn't need to explain return values, and the annotations already handle idempotency and destructiveness.

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?

The schema already covers the single parameter (id) with a description. The description adds value by clarifying that the id refers to an outcome TYPE and explains the effect (sets isActive→false), which supplements the schema description.

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?

The description explicitly defines the operation with a specific verb and resource: 'Deactivate an outcome TYPE' and clarifies it's a soft archive, not a delete. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like clocknext_archive_plan and clocknext_archive_credit by stating it's not related to archiving customers or ending purchases.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use ONLY to retire an outcome you no longer sell'), when-not-to-use context ('unrelated to archiving a customer or ending a purchase'), and an explicit alternative for reversing (reactivate via clocknext_update_outcome with isActive:true).

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