pad_archive

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: the operation is reversible (unarchive) and content is preserved and still readable by pad_id. That materially softens the 'destructive' reading and tells the agent the effect is renameable rather than erased.

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 sentences, zero padding, with the primary action and its reversal front-loaded before the side-effect explanation. Every clause earns its place.

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 need no explanation, and the description covers the required parameter's effect plus reversibility. The only thin spot is the project_id scope override, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 67%, with archived and project_id already documented in the schema; pad_id is bare but self-evident. The description's 'unarchive with archived=false' merely restates the schema's default note, adding little syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 pad') and immediately covers the inverse operation ('unarchive with archived=false'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling pad_delete by noting the old content stays readable, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use ('Archiving frees the name for a new active pad') and the condition that flips behavior (archived=false). It does not explicitly name when to prefer it over pad_delete or note any prerequisites, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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