time.entries.archive

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

Excellently supplements annotations by detailing the exact mechanism (timestamp setting), immediate effect ('hiding it from all queries'), and data preservation guarantee. Explains the idempotent nature implied by 'setting' a timestamp and clarifies that 'destructive' applies to visibility, not data integrity.

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?

Two tightly constructed sentences with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with the action and mechanism, followed immediately by use-case guidance. Every clause 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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema and presence of rich annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description successfully covers the mechanism, side effects, and use cases without needing to describe return values (no output schema).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single UUID parameter, the schema fully documents the input. The description provides baseline adequacy by referencing 'time entry' contextually but does not add syntax or format guidance beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb phrase 'Soft-delete' with explicit mechanism ('setting its archived_at timestamp') and resource ('time entry'). The 'without destroying the underlying data' clause effectively distinguishes this from hard-delete patterns.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('when the freelancer wants to permanently remove an incorrectly logged or duplicate time entry'), distinguishing archiving for removal from editing workflows. Lacks explicit mention of sibling alternatives like 'update', but the use case implies replacement rather than modification.

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