build_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add the useful detail that it emits a .xcarchive artifact, but gives no information about required signing/credentials, execution time, where the archive is written, or whether the path directory is created. For a build mutation with zero annotation coverage this is a large gap.

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?

It is short but this is under-specification rather than true conciseness. The single fragment is front-loaded, yet it omits information that would earn its place (prerequisites, artifact location). A one-line arrow notation is too sparse for a four-parameter build tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But given four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a complex build operation, the description leaves out signing requirements, project/scheme expectations, and how the result feeds downstream shipping steps. Incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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% and there are four parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. 'archive_path' is only obliquely implied by '→ .xcarchive'; project, scheme, and the Release-defaulted configuration are entirely unaddressed. No format hints (workspace vs project) or path conventions are given.

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 names a concrete verb+resource (xcodebuild archive) and identifies the output artifact (.xcarchive), so the core action is inferable. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like build_export_ipa or build_for_sim, and the '(generic iOS)' fragment is the only scoping hint. It states what happens but not how it differs from adjacent build tools.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the many other build/export siblings (build_for_sim, build_export_ipa, build_test). No prerequisites, no mention of needing a configured scheme or signing setup. The agent must guess where archive fits in the pipeline.

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