Metis · Librarian — Archive Library Item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: sets status='archived', keeps in DB, affects default view but not search. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects, but for a simple archive operation the transparency is adequate.

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 concise sentences plus an Args line. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides the SQL detail, and the third explains the effect. No wasted words; information is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 low complexity (one parameter, simple action) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what happens to the item, its visibility, and the parameter meaning. Minor gaps like reversibility or permissions are not critical for this tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameter. It does so by stating that relative_path is the primary key in the library_seeded table, adding context beyond the parameter name. This is sufficient, though a format example could improve 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The description clearly states the verb 'Archive' and the resource 'library item,' explaining that it marks an item as no longer active but keeps it in the database. It distinguishes this from deletion (e.g., remove_library_item) by noting the item remains searchable and cross-pollinated.

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 explains the effect (disappears from default view, stays searchable) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_library_item or archive_project. The usage context is implied rather than directly guided.

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