set_evaluator_archived

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that nothing is deleted, that versions and name are retained, that Metric Groups continue to score, and that only an archived_at timestamp appears. It omits permission requirements and idempotency/error specifics beyond a generic "or an error message".

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by behavior and then parameters, so an agent can stop reading early. The reStructuredText :param:/:returns: markers are slightly noisy but each line carries distinct information, so little is wasted.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent, side effects, retention semantics, and the return value (the Evaluator or an error message). What remains missing — permissions and error conditions — is modest for a low-complexity toggle.

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%, so the description must define both parameters, and it does: evaluator_id is identified as the Evaluator's id, and archived is explicitly True to archive / False to unarchive — the key ambiguity for a toggle tool. The explanations are terse but sufficient; no format or example for evaluator_id is given.

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?

"Archives or unarchives an Evaluator" gives a specific verb pair and resource, and "Nothing is deleted" immediately separates it from destructive siblings like delete_experiment or delete_metric_group. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

"Use it to retire an Evaluator without breaking history" states the intended situation clearly, and the archive/unarchive toggle tells the agent both directions exist. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., delete_* or update_evaluator) or stating when not to archive, so it is context-rich but not fully routing.

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