set_archived

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new behavior: version-dependent semantics (archived boolean in farmOS 4 vs. status-field fallback in farmOS 3) and a write-permission prerequisite. It stops short of describing what happens to dependents or the response, keeping it at a solid 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the version caveat, then the precondition — a logical ordering with no filler. Three short sentences that each carry information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the permission requirement and version differences that would otherwise trip an agent up. The only thin spot is absence of guidance versus update_record.

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 every parameter is described there, including the archived boolean's true/false meaning. The description's version note adds context for the archived field but nothing beyond what the schema already provides per parameter, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb pair ('archive or restore') and the resource scope ('an asset or plan'), so an agent can tell it apart from generic update_record. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling to prefer, but the operation is unmistakable.

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 prerequisite 'Requires writes to be enabled' is useful context, but there's no guidance on when to use this versus update_record or set_log_status, which are its closest siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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