Archive or Restore Asset

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

Annotations already indicate mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds crucial context: archiving hides from normal views, is reversible, and archived assets remain readable via hudu_list_assets with archived:true. It also explains the API limitation (no /assets/{id} route) and the 404 behavior under a wrong company_id, which goes beyond basic annotation coverage.

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 organized into three focused paragraphs, each earning its place. While slightly verbose, the first paragraph explains behavior and reversibility, the second addresses the critical company_id requirement, and the third gives usage guidance. No wasted words, though it could be tightened marginally.

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 boolean toggle with no output schema, the description fully covers what happens on invocation (hides or restores), the reversibility guarantee, the differentiation from delete, and the prerequisite of company_id. The behavioral and parameter coverage is sufficient for an agent to invoke this correctly without additional context.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable guidance on how to derive company_id from hudu_list_assets results and the consequence of using the wrong company_id (404 indistinguishable from deletion). This elevates the parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 opens with 'Archive or unarchive an asset' - a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling hudu_delete_asset by emphasizing reversibility and that it hides rather than deletes. The purpose is unambiguous and accurately reflected in the title.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: it is the reversible alternative to hudu_delete_asset and should be preferred when a user wants a decommissioned machine 'removed' without permanent documentation loss. It also provides a concrete workflow for obtaining company_id via hudu_list_assets, which is critical for correct invocation.

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