orchestrate_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that deliverables are archived and the lock is released, but it does not explain whether archiving is reversible, what happens to in-progress work, how the lock is determined, or what side effects the operation has beyond that.

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 a single, front-loaded, two-clause sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds behavioral information, and nothing needs to be removed.

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?

The tool has two parameters, no annotations, and unclear side effects, yet the description provides only a high-level action. The agent is left without enough context to safely use 'force' or understand the impact of archiving. An output schema exists, but it does not compensate for the missing behavioral and parameter context.

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 for the undocumented parameters. It does not mention 'force' or 'workspace_root' at all; the agent cannot infer what 'force' controls or how 'workspace_root' changes behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with a default force=true.

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 uses a specific verb ('archive') and a specific resource ('current orchestration deliverables'), plus a secondary action ('release session lock'). This makes it distinct from sibling lifecycle tools like orchestrate_init or orchestrate_approve, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when this tool should be used versus ordinary_status, orchestrate_approve, or orchestrate_verify. The name implies it is a finalization step, but the description does not state prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusions.

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