art.asset.archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the core effect ('remove from active use') but does not mention reversibility, side effects, required permissions, or what happens to asset versions. This is adequate for a simple operation but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 description is a single, focused sentence that clearly defines the operation and its effect. There is no fluff, and the parenthetical adds necessary clarification without 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?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details. It lacks usage guidance and behavioral nuance, but the operation is simple enough that an agent can call it with just the id and a reasonable understanding of the action.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description's 'Asset ID to archive' adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('asset'), and clarifies the meaning with 'remove from active use.' It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like art.asset.archive_version or art.asset.deprecate, though the parenthetical helps.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as art.asset.archive_version, art.asset.deprecate, or art.asset.update. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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