Archive location

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the write profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that: cascade semantics (archiving a premises also archives sublocations), the side effect on a matching home default, and the retention rule that history keeps the site while it disappears from new selections.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and then layered with cascade and retention facts. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and no annotation-supplied parameter help, the description covers behavior well but omits how to reverse the action (restore_location is a sibling) and says nothing about the version/farm parameters. Adequate, with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does not mention any of the three parameters by name. farm_id and especially expected_version (an optimistic-concurrency control) are left entirely unexplained, and only 'a location' loosely gestures at location_id.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Archive a location') and immediately scopes the operation, so the agent can distinguish it from update_location or restore_location. It stops short of naming a sibling, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The clause 'History keeps the site; it is excluded from new selections' implies this is a soft-delete/retire operation rather than a hard removal, which is useful context, but the description never points to restore_location as the undo path or states prerequisites.

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