codesweep_archive

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that archived sweeps are excluded from codesweep_list by default, which is a real behavioral consequence. However, it does not mention reversibility, idempotency, permissions, or whether archiving affects items or related data, so some mutation context is still missing.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary action and its key side effect come first, followed by the sibling routing and then the parameter clarification. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 simple one-parameter operation with an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavioral consequence and parameter format. It does not explain edge cases like already-archived sweeps or interaction with codesweep_archive_items more deeply, but nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking the 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?

The schema provides only a bare required string with no property description, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by defining sweep_ref as 'Sweep ID (SW-N) or name', which gives the agent the exact accepted format and reference style. A small gap remains in that it does not explain ambiguity resolution if both ID and name are possible.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('Archive a sweep') and immediately adds the consequential behavior: archived sweeps are excluded from codesweep_list by default. It also names the sibling codesweep_archive_items, distinguishing the whole-sweep archive action from the item-level archive action.

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 gives concrete routing guidance: for entry-level archiving, use codesweep_archive_items instead. This tells the agent which sibling alternative applies in a distinct case, though it does not spell out broader when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios beyond that distinction.

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