crystal_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the storage target, that state and artifacts are preserved (non-destructive/reversible), and the reason for doing it. It omits auth requirements, failure conditions for active crystals, and whether the operation is undoable via crystal_unarchive.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, and every clause earns its place by adding destination, precondition, and rationale.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, precondition, destination, and side effects adequately. Only minor gaps remain, such as how to reverse the archive or what error occurs on an active crystal.

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?

There is a single required parameter (crystal_id) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 resource (crystal) plus the destination path (.ccrystals/archive/) and the motivation (reduce cave bloat). The contrast with destructive siblings like crystal_delete or crystal_melt is implied by 'preserving all state and artifacts' but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear selection condition: only concluded or inactive crystals should be archived, which frames when the tool applies. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., crystal_delete for removal, crystal_unarchive for restoration) or stating what happens if the crystal is still active.

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