archive_chain

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the vague phrase 'with retention metadata', which is not backed by any parameter and does not explain irreversibility, permissions required, or what happens to the archived chain — thin value for a destructive mutation.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'with retention metadata' clause is vague and arguably unearned, keeping it from a 5.

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 destructive, irreversible-in-spirit archive operation with an undocumented parameter, the description omits prerequisites (must the chain be complete/closed?), effect on links and tickets, and what 'retention metadata' means. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the operational context is still insufficient.

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 reported at 0% and there is one required parameter (chain_id). The description says nothing about chain_id (format, valid values, or where to obtain it) and the mention of 'retention metadata' refers to no parameter at all, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (move to archive) and resource (chain), plus a precondition ('completed chain'), so the agent knows what operation is performed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as complete_chain, set_chain_status, or update_chain_metadata, so the boundary is left implicit.

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 phrase 'completed chain' implies a precondition for calling this tool, but the description never states when to use this versus complete_chain/close_ticket or what to do if the chain is not yet complete. Usage must be inferred.

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