Archive Order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the concrete effect (hidden from the fulfilment queue, record retained), reversibility (restorable at any time), and error semantics (404 not found, 401 invalid keys). It does not mention permissions or rate limits, so it falls short of fully exhaustive disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then cleanly sectioned into When to use / Parameters / Returns / Errors. The Parameters and Returns sections are somewhat redundant for a one-parameter tool with an existing output schema, but nothing is confusing or bloated.

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 single-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: effect, reversibility, selection guidance against delete, and failure modes. No material gap remains.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully typed (positive integer, internal order ID), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description restates the parameter definition verbatim without adding format examples, ID-source hints, or constraints beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 an order in StarShipIt') and immediately defines what archiving means: hidden from the main fulfilment queue but retained in the system. It is clearly separable from starshipit_delete_order, starshipit_update_order and starshipit_restore_order in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly says to use this 'instead of deleting when you want to remove an order from the active queue while retaining its record', naming both the alternative action and the deciding condition. It also flags that archived orders can be restored, which routes the agent toward the restore path if needed.

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