archive

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

Beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations, it discloses a lot: links are rewritten to warn afterwards (archived_link), status is untouched, a whole bundle keeps its log.md and its index.md stops declaring a bundle, the archive bundle is auto-created, and the archive is read-only to editing tools. That is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs before 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?

The verb and scope are front-loaded and no sentence is purely filler, but the text is a dense run-on punctuated with spec-section markers (§8) and stray notation that add noise rather than agent-relevant meaning. It could be split into a purpose sentence plus discrete behavior bullets.

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, non-idempotent, no-output-schema tool with three undocumented parameters, the description covers the important ground: what moves, where it lands, what happens to links and indexes, and the dry-run mode. It lacks conflict/error behavior and the exact shape of the plan/diff, which keeps it short of complete.

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 carries the full burden, and it does explain all three: `file` selects a concept, omitting it archives the named bundle, and `apply=False` previews versus executing. The garbled "(no file) the whole bundle= named" phrasing and the unexplained empty-string defaults keep this from being fully clear.

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 names a concrete operation (moving a concept or a whole bundle into the `archive/` bundle) and explicitly references the inverse sibling `unarchive`, so the agent can distinguish the two. The opening clause is garbled ("or (no file) the whole bundle= named"), which slightly obscures the subject but the intent is still recoverable.

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?

It gives one useful workflow hint — `apply=False` shows the plan and diff — and points to `unarchive` for reversal, implying a preview-then-commit pattern. However, it never states when to prefer `archive` over siblings like `move`, nor any preconditions or exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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