lifecycle

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It does usefully disclose that content is retained and graph identity lineage is preserved, which tells the agent this is a reversible-tier move rather than a deletion. It says nothing about permissions, idempotency/replay behavior implied by request_id, or whether archived records disappear from default reads and searches.

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 action and the key preservation guarantee are stated up front. Its brevity is efficient but edges into under-specification for a 6-parameter mutation.

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 mutation tool with six parameters, a large sibling ecosystem containing near-neighbors (retention, forget, history), and an output schema, the description is thin. It omits what archiving actually does to the record's discoverability and links, whether the move is reversible, and any concurrency guidance around expected_revision.

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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate, and it does not mention any parameter. Critically, it never explains the operational distinction between the two tiers (visibility, mutability, queryability), which is the single most important semantic for target_tier. Optional parameters like target_type and expected_revision are left entirely to the schema.

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 a concrete verb and resource: moving a record between 'operational' and 'archival' tiers, matching the target_tier enum. However, it calls the target a 'record' while the schema calls it a 'node' and enumerates 17 node types, and it never distinguishes itself from plausible siblings like 'retention', 'forget', or 'history'.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as retention, forget, or history. The phrase 'with full content and preserved graph identity lineage' hints that this is a non-destructive alternative to deletion, but the agent must infer that condition rather than being told it.

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