Goals Archive Goal

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already signals mutation, and the description's 'This may create or update Monarch data' adds a generic side-effect warning. However, it does not disclose what specific data changes, whether archiving is reversible, or what impact it has on goal state. It is consistent with annotations but not richly transparent.

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 description is short but under-specified. 'Archive goal.' adds nothing beyond the tool title, and the second sentence is a vague side-effect warning. It is front-loaded but not appropriately sized for a mutation tool whose semantics are otherwise unexplained.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the presence of closely related siblings, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what archiving means, whether it can be undone, how it relates to goals_restore_goal or goals_delete_goal, or what outcome the agent should expect.

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 fields and output_mode already documented by the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and goal_id is left undocumented, though its name is self-explanatory. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed 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?

The description 'Archive goal.' merely restates the tool name and title without explaining what archiving entails or how it differs from sibling actions like goals_delete_goal or goals_restore_goal. It identifies a verb and resource but adds no distinguishing meaning.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as goals_update_goal, goals_delete_goal, or goals_restore_goal. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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