Archive environment

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

The description significantly expands on the annotations by explaining what happens: the environment is no longer usable, its plan slot is freed, and its snapshots and history survive. This adds valuable behavioral nuance beyond the destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true annotations, and it does not contradict them.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and every clause adds relevant meaning. There is no repetition, filler, or unnecessary detail.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, consequences, and non-destructive nature of data. However, it lacks guidance on how to specify the environment parameter and does not explicitly contrast it with related tools, leaving small but real gaps in completeness.

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?

The only parameter 'environment' has no schema description and the description gives no detail about what form it should take (name, ID, path, etc.). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description was expected to compensate, but it only says 'an environment' without specifying how to identify it.

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 uses the specific verb 'Archive' and clearly identifies the resource ('an environment') and the key consequence: freeing the plan slot it holds. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling delete/create tools by explicitly clarifying that nothing is deleted, which prevents confusion with the tool's name.

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 when to use the tool: when you want an environment to stop counting as live and free its plan slot, while preserving snapshots and history. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a simple one-parameter archiving operation.

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