art.asset.archive_version

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects itself; it states that the asset is removed from active use but omits whether this is reversible, whether it affects only the canonical version, what happens to references, or whether special actor permissions are required.

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. It conveys the core action and consequence efficiently.

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 mutating archive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified: it lacks version semantics, reversibility, return behavior, and selection criteria. The presence of sibling archive/deprecate tools makes this ambiguity more costly.

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 the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify how asset_id identifies the canonical asset or how the actor object is used.

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 names a specific action ('Archive') and a clear outcome ('removing it from active use'), so an agent understands the core operation. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling art.asset.archive or art.asset.deprecate, and the phrase 'canonical asset' leaves the version-specific behavior implied by the tool name unclear.

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 given about when to call archive_version versus art.asset.archive, art.asset.deprecate, promote, or rollback. The only usage signal is the generic purpose statement, which does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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