archive_artifact

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It mentions archiving and providing a reason but does not disclose reversibility, side effects (e.g., artifact hidden or deleted), permission requirements, or output schema behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a best-practice guideline and a reminder. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

Has output schema, so return value is covered. The description effectively explains the purpose and best practice, but lacks details on the state transition (e.g., whether artifact becomes inactive). Context of sibling tools is clear.

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% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds 'Provide a reason when possible' which reinforces the schema's 'recommended' note, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond that.

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clearly states the action ('archive') and the resource ('artifact'), and specifies it is for incorrect, misleading, or outdated artifacts. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_artifact or create_artifact.

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 actionable guidance: prefer creating a replacement before archiving. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives like update_artifact, but the suggestion implies prioritization.

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