survey_agent_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states the tool does not delete answers, which is key transparency for a non-destructive action, but does not disclose effects on visibility/listing, whether restoration fully reverses the state, or any required permissions. Additional behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 one sentence with 10 words, front-loading the core action ('Archive or restore a survey') and adding a key behavioral note. Every part earns its place with zero waste.

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 two parameters, the complexity of a toggle action, and the presence of an output schema (which can explain return values), the description is mostly complete. It clarifies the non-destructive nature and the dual operation. It could be more complete by noting the visibility context or listing what happens to the archived state, but overall it is sufficient for this tool.

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 compensate. The description adds meaning to the archived and survey_id parameters by stating the tool archives or restores, implying the boolean controls which action, and that survey_id identifies the survey. However, it does not specify the default behavior (archived defaults to true) or clarify the restore case, leaving some gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it adds some value but not full clarity.

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 (hide from list) or restore a survey. Does not delete answers.' uses a specific verb ('Archive or restore') and resource ('survey'), clearly distinguishes the tool's dual operation (archive/restore), and differentiates it from deletion tools like survey_agent_delete among siblings.

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 description implies when to use this tool (to hide or unhide a survey), but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., survey_agent_delete for permanent removal). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparative context.

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