openspec_archive_change

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool syncs revisions to design.md before archiving, but it does not clarify what archiving entails (e.g., permanent readonly, removal from active lists) or any permissions needed. The disclosure is adequate but incomplete.

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 consists of two clear sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: the first states the primary action, the second discloses an important automatic side effect. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters, the description covers the primary action and a key side effect. However, it lacks information on return values, error conditions, and the exact effect of archiving on the change object. It is functional but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond naming the sync action, which is not a parameter. The schema already fully describes the two parameters.

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 states the action 'Archive' and the resource 'completed change proposal,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve or reject. The additional detail about syncing revisions clarifies the scope and side effect.

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?

The description implies the change must be completed, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'openspec_approve_change' or ‘openspec_reject_change’ as prerequisites. There is no explicit guidance on ordering or when not to use it.

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