Archive Test Case

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as the effects of archiving, reversibility, or required permissions. The agent is left unaware of the tool's impact.

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?

At four words, the description is extremely short but under-specifies the tool's behavior. It does not earn its place as it merely repeats the name, lacking additional value.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description should explain the archiving effect and prerequisites. It fails to provide complete context, especially given the many sibling tools.

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 has one required parameter 'id' with a description instructing to use the id from the search response, which adds value. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not add further parameter information.

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 'Archive a test case' clearly states the verb and resource, but it merely restates the tool name without distinguishing from sibling archive tools like archive-qmetry-test-cycle or archive-qmetry-test-plan.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unarchive-qmetry-test-case, update-qmetry-test-case, or other operations. The description does not specify context or exclusions.

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