Archive a post

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: the exact category transformation rule, including the nested case ('dev/docs' -> 'Archived/dev/docs') and the no-category fallback. It stops short of stating reversibility or failure behavior (already-archived posts, missing categories).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the category-path edge cases. No filler, though the second and third sentences could be merged without loss.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation's outcome well but omits error/edge cases (post already archived, nonexistent category), permission requirements, and whether the operation is reversible. Annotations carry the safety signal, so the gaps are not severe, but an agent still has open questions.

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%, so the schema already documents postNumber, teamName and message; baseline is 3. The description adds how postNumber selects the resource but says nothing about teamName (which its own property description calls required) or the meaning of the change message.

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 and even specifies the mechanism (moving to the Archived/ category) plus the resulting category path. This distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like esa_ship_post or esa_delete_comment/rollback, since archive is a category-move, not a status change or deletion.

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?

Usage is implied by the described effect — you call this when you want to retire a post into the Archived tree — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives such as esa_ship_post (which also relocates a post). With a dense sibling set, an explicit pointer would have helped.

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