LightCMS

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds critical behavioral context: the fork and pages are 'preserved' (explaining destructive=false), becomes 'read-only' (state change), and 'Requires admin role' (authorization barrier not in annotations). Adds significant value beyond structured hints.

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?

Three tightly constructed sentences: 1) Action + sibling distinction, 2) Preservation semantics + state change, 3) Authorization requirement. Zero redundancy; every word earns its place. Excellent information density.

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 single-parameter state-change tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation outcome (read-only preservation), authorization boundary, and sibling distinction. Completeness is appropriate for the tool's complexity; no critical gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage ('Fork workspace ID to archive,required'), so baseline is 3. Description does not add parameter semantics, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides, but none is needed given complete schema coverage.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Archive' with resource 'fork', states the exact outcome (becomes read-only), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling merge_fork with 'without merging it'. Also distinguishes from delete_fork by stating data is preserved.

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?

Explicitly references the alternative action (merging) via 'without merging it', establishing the choice point. States prerequisite 'Requires admin role'. Could be improved by explicitly stating when to choose archive vs delete, but clearly signals this is a preservation alternative to merging.

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