vast_archive_zone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavior: the operation is reversible ('can be restored later') and non-destructive in the sense of soft-delete. This adds meaningful context beyond what the schema provides, though it stops short of describing side effects or authorization requirements.

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, focused sentence that conveys both the action and the key nuance (soft-delete, restorable). Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary verb and object.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what 'archive' means in this domain and notes the reversibility. It does not mention return values, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation and the presence of sibling tools that illustrate lifecycle.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter 'id' as 'VAST zone ID', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or usage guidance for this 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Archive' with resource 'VAST zone' and clarifies it's a soft-delete that can be restored. This distinguishes it from permanent delete operations among siblings.

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 phrase 'soft-delete, can be restored later' implies the appropriate context compared to hard-delete alternatives, but does not explicitly name alternatives like vast_delete_zone or vast_unarchive_zone. Clear context is provided, but exclusions are not explicit.

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