research_archive

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real value by disclosing that the study disappears from the default list, that its materials are retained, and that the operation is reversible. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured hints, though permission requirements are still unstated.

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?

Two short, front-loaded clauses with no filler: the action first, then the consequences. Every clause carries information, though the semicolon-separated packing is terse enough to feel telegraphic.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey outcomes — and it does: list-hiding, material retention, reversibility. For a single-parameter state-change tool with matching non-destructive annotations, this is close to complete; only auth/permission context and the meaning of study_id are missing.

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?

There is one required parameter, study_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — no ID format, source, or how to obtain it. The pattern '^r_[a-f0-9]{8}$' in the schema hints at format, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap as the rubric requires at this coverage level.

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+resource ('归档研究' / archive research) and adds scope detail: it is hidden from the default list and materials are retained. This implicitly separates it from research_delete and signals research_unarchive as the inverse, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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 — archive when you want the study out of the default list without losing data — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. research_delete for true removal). The reader must infer the routing decision.

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