archive_library_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses the mutation behavior (status update), that the item is kept in DB, searchable, and hidden from default view. It does not cover permissions or idempotency, but overall provides sufficient behavioral context.

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 concise, with three sentences: a one-line summary, a line explaining the effect, and an Args section. Front-loaded with the main purpose, 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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (presumably returning success/failure), the description covers the effect, the parameter, and persistence behavior. No additional information is needed.

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 single parameter `relative_path` is described as 'the relative_path primary key in library_seeded table', adding critical context beyond the schema's type-only definition (string). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool's purpose: archive a library item by setting status to 'archived'. It distinguishes from hard deletion and from archival of other resources like projects. The verb 'archive' and resource 'library item' are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage for items that should be kept but hidden from default view, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like `remove_library_item`. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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