Manual Acceptance Packet Archive Retention Plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explicitly stating that the tool does 'not delete files or record evidence', providing behavioral clarity beyond annotations. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but structurally awkward ('Plan generated manual...'). It could be more direct and clear. It is not unnecessarily verbose, but clarity suffers.

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 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema (not shown), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns (a plan?), how to interpret results, or how parameters affect output. It is incomplete for a planning tool that likely produces actionable information.

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?

Input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter (keep, limit, offset, archive_dir). It only mentions 'pruning' but gives no meaning to the parameters. With zero schema descriptions, the tool description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 states 'plan generated manual acceptance packet archive pruning' which is somewhat clear but grammatically awkward. It identifies the resource ('manual acceptance packet archive') and action ('plan pruning'), but the verb 'plan' is ambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'memory.acceptance_packet_archive_status' by implying a planning rather than status check, but not explicitly.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The sibling tools include related operations like archive status and similar retention plans for other domains, but the description offers no differentiation.

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