openspec_archive

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only reveals that main specs will be updated, but does not explain what archiving entails (e.g., whether it's reversible, if it moves/copies data, or requires permissions). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and effect. It contains no wasted words and is easy to parse.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks critical behavioral context and usage guidance. It does not address side effects, prerequisites, or the meaning of 'archived', making it incomplete for an agent to safely invoke.

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?

Both parameters (changeName and skipSpecs) are described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents all parameters.

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 clearly states the primary action (archive a change) and the secondary effect (update main specs). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'archive' action is distinct from sibling tools like openspec_update or openspec_new_change, though it doesn't explicitly call out an alternative.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as openspec_update or openspec_list. The only contextual clue is 'completed change', which implies a prerequisite but does not explain when archiving is appropriate or when to choose a different tool.

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