archive_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden, and it does disclose the important trait: the operation is non-destructive and hides the feature from default listings while retaining versions, branches, link events and outcomes. It stops short of saying whether the archive is reversible via unarchive_feature, who may perform it, or what the response contains.

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 first sentence is well-formed and front-loaded, but the remaining three lines are a generic plan-comparison advertisement ("calibration that learns your printer, mid-print edits, and unlimited textures and decorations") plus an upgrade URL that says nothing about archiving a feature.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the crucial preservation semantics but leaves reversibility, permissions/Pro gating, and the identifier's form undocumented. The trailing marketing block actively dilutes the useful content.

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 single required parameter feature_id is never mentioned in the description — no format (UUID vs. name), no example, no scoping note. The prose therefore does nothing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 opening clause gives a specific verb and resource ("Archive a mechanical feature") and immediately defines what archiving means — hidden from default listings but versions, branches, link events and outcomes preserved. That distinguishes it in substance from delete_feature and from unarchive_feature, though neither sibling is named.

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?

There is no statement of when to archive versus delete_feature, retire_feature_branch, or unarchive_feature, and no preconditions for the caller. The only eligibility signal is the boilerplate "Requires Kiln Pro", which is ambiguous about whether it gates this specific tool.

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