moa_tip_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavior: the operation does not alter other content, and the actor parameter identifies the updater in BoardEntry.author. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 a single sentence with two clauses, front-loaded with the primary action and constraint. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with 3 parameters and no output schema, and the description covers the core purpose and actor semantics. However, it lacks details about return values, errors, or what 'archive' entails besides preserving content, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only 33% (only workspace is described). The description adds meaning to the actor parameter by explaining its role in identifying the updater, but the id parameter is left to inference. It partially compensates for the low 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 uses a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('project Tip'), and the qualifier 'without changing its other content' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool moa_tip_update, which presumably modifies content.

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 this tool is for archiving only, contrasting with updating content, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives enough context for an agent to infer the use case but lacks explicit guidance.

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