knowledge_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: archived pages are excluded from certain tools (knowledge_recall and knowledge_maintain), remain in the database, and are recoverable via knowledge_restore. This goes beyond a simple description and provides actionable transparency.

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 sentences: the first defines the action and effect, the second provides usage context and alternatives. Every sentence adds value, no filler. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the effect, availability, and recovery. However, it doesn't detail the status change or any side effects, but the context of sibling tools makes it sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by referring to the 'note' as a 'tombstone note' and explaining the purpose of both parameters ('slug' as the page to archive, 'note' as why it's being retired), reinforcing the schema descriptions without adding significant new details.

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 tool's purpose: 'Soft-retire a knowledge page: set its status to archived with an optional tombstone note.' It distinguishes itself from deletion and the sibling tool knowledge_supersede, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool ('Use this instead of deletion when the page may need to be audited or recovered') and when to prefer an alternative ('For deduplication merges, prefer knowledge_supersede'). This provides clear usage guidelines.

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