archive_configuration

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, open-world behavior, but the description adds crucial context beyond them: it is a soft delete (hides but keeps recoverable), synced configurations may be restored or updated by the next sync, and the source system should be cleaned up first. This is rich behavioral disclosure that helps the agent anticipate side effects and avoid surprises.

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?

Front-loads a HIGH-IMPACT warning, then states the action, alternative tool, sync caveat, and confirmation requirement in compact sentences. Every sentence adds necessary information without filler, and the structure puts the most important caution first.

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 high-impact one-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing operational context: reversibility, sync interaction risks, and the need for user confirmation. Nothing material is left unspecified for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the single configuration_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or meaning for the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 (archives) and resource (IT Glue configuration), and clarifies the scope with 'soft delete — hides it from normal views but keeps it recoverable.' It explicitly names the sibling unarchive_configuration for restoration, making it easy to distinguish from other archive_* tools and from search/get_configuration.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool for restoration (unarchive_configuration) and gives conditions to check before use: tidy up the source system for PSA/RMM-synced configurations, and confirm with the user. This tells the agent when to use this tool versus its inverse and what prerequisites matter.

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