Archive dossier

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's main added value is the 'after the user confirms' precondition, which signals that this is a user-gated destructive action. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately states the essential precondition, making every word earn its place.

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 one-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It could theoretically elaborate on what 'archiving' changes, but the low complexity, the user-confirmation precondition, and the existing structured metadata make the definition complete enough for correct invocation.

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% and the dossier_id parameter is already well documented in the schema with a source ('returned by create_dossier') and an example. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Archive') and a specific resource ('a dossier'), and adds a workflow condition ('after the user confirms in their client'). The verb clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dossier, list_dossiers, and create_dossier.

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?

Provides clear context: the tool should only be used after the user has explicitly confirmed in their client. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the precondition is unambiguous and adequate for this simple operation.

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