archive_project_brain

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the action (archiving), destination, and intent (preserving history), which gives basic insight. However, it does not specify whether the archive is copied or moved, how existing archives are handled, or the exact return behavior. This is a middle ground between minimal and detailed.

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 packed with necessary information: action, resource, destination, and timing. No unnecessary words or redundancy, making it highly effective.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential context: what is archived, where, and when. Since an output schema exists, return values likely are covered elsewhere. A slight gap is the lack of detail on archive overwriting or naming, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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% with the single 'path' parameter already described as 'Project root directory.' The description does not add extra meaning to the parameter, but since the schema fully documents it, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 archives Project Brain settings and context files to .project_brain_archive/, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reset_project_brain and generate_project_brain by explicitly targeting pre-reset archival.

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 guidance 'before a reset or pivot' provides clear contextual timing for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to differentiate from reset or generation tools. This meets 'clear context, no exclusions' (score 4).

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