pad_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that the name is freed and content stays readable, and implies reversibility via unarchive. However, it does not mention any permissions, side effects, or edge cases (e.g., restrictions on archiving certain pads).

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?

Two concise sentences. The core action is in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a valuable behavioral consequence. No fluff or repetition.

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 toggle operation with an output schema present, the description covers the main behavior and consequences. It does not mention any potential failure modes or additional constraints, but these are not critical given the simplicity and the parameter descriptions.

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 schema already describes two of three parameters (archived and project_id) with useful guidance, and the description adds no parameter-specific details. With 67% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description does not compensate beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Archive' and the resource 'pad', and explicitly notes the unarchive behavior via 'archived=false'. It also distinguishes archiving from deletion by mentioning that content remains readable, making the purpose unambiguous even among sibling tools like pad_delete.

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 some context on when to use this tool (to free the pad name while keeping content readable), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons with pad_delete or other related tools are given.

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