Archive goal

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=trueaine, but the description goes much further: it reveals that this is a soft removal, how it affects active views, that it is hard to reverse, and what state changes occur. This significantly exceeds the annotation signal and fully discloses the operation's consequences.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds necessary context: the subgraph scope, soft-removal semantics, reversal difficulty, and the distillation prerequisite. Nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it affects, when it can be used, and what the consequences are. An agent has enough information to decide to call it and to understand the result.

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% and the single id parameter is described as 'goal id G-NN'. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('verified goal together with its exclusive subgraph'), and explains the mechanism (setting archived flags). It also explicitly distinguishes the operation from deletion, which helps separate it from destructive siblings like revert or undo.

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 gives clear preconditions: the goal must be verified distilled first, and gate reports whether the goal is due. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the prerequisites and soft-removal framing provide strong usage context.

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