Archive a Qmetry test cycle

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 whether archiving is reversible, what side effects occur, required permissions, or impact on related entities. The word 'archive' alone is insufficient.

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 extremely concise at one short sentence. This is appropriate for a simple operation, though it sacrifices detail. No structure is needed for such brevity.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the effects of archiving, such as visibility changes or impact on test cycles. It fails to complete the picture for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 parameter idOrKey is fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage), including a description to reference the ID from 'Search Test Cycles'. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline.

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 states 'Archive a test cycle', which is a clear verb+resource. However, it is essentially a shorter version of the title 'Archive a Qmetry test cycle' and adds no additional context distinguishing it from sibling tools like archive-qmetry-test-case 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 archiving a test case or test plan. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or best practices for archiving.

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