archive_character

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by naming the destinations, but it does not explain whether the action is destructive, reversible, or requires permissions. More detail would improve 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the distinction.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations) and presence of an output schema, the description could be more complete by explaining the effects of archiving (e.g., whether the character is removed from active play, if the action is reversible) or the return value format.

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?

The description adds meaning to the sole parameter 'destination' by specifying the allowed values ('graveyard' or 'hall_of_fame'), which the schema does not provide. This compensates for the 0% schema description 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?

The description clearly states the action ('archive'), the resource ('hero'), and the two possible destinations ('graveyard' for death, 'hall_of_fame' for victory). This differentiates it from siblings like 'create_character' or 'update_character_sheet'.

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 implies when to use the tool (archiving a hero as death or victory) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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