Archive feature flag

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true is supplemented by the description's disclosure that archiving soft-hides the flag, stops evaluation, and is reversible. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation and does not contradict it.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action, then provides a parenthetical clarifying behavioral effect and reversibility. No filler or redundant 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational behavior, impact, and reversibility. It doesn't specify parameter formats or error conditions, but that is minor given the clarity of the action and self-explanatory parameter names.

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-description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on 'project' or 'flag' parameter semantics or formats. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value for agents trying to determine expected values, so it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 and resource ('Archive a flag') and clarifies the meaning with 'soft-hide, evaluation stops serving it.' It distinguishes itself from delete_flag by noting reversibility and from toggle_flag by noting evaluation is stopped. Clearly identifies this as a distinct operation 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?

Provides clear context that this is a soft-hide and reversible operation, implying it should be used when you want to stop serving a flag without permanent deletion. It names restore_flag as the reversal alternative, giving useful guidance, though it does not explicitly contrast with delete_flag or enumerate all exclusions.

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