archive_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well: it discloses the REVIEW_REQUIRED return, the soft-delete behavior, version increment, retention of audit history and links, and exclusion from ordinary search. This prevents an agent from assuming a hard delete or a standard write.

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 three compact sentences with no filler. The legacy warning and alternative is front-loaded, followed by side effects and search visibility, so every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the return state, side effects, and search visibility. The main remaining gap is the precise precondition for expected_version, but an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to record_id and expected_version. It adds 'using the retrieved version' and 'increment version,' suggesting expected_version is an optimistic-concurrency value, but it does not explicitly state matching/failure behavior or how to obtain the retrieved version.

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 identifies this as a soft-delete/archive operation for a record and explicitly distinguishes it from the normal write path by calling it 'Legacy direct write' and naming prepare_write/commit_write as alternatives. The statement that archived records are excluded from ordinary search pins down the resource and outcome beyond the tool name.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: it warns that this legacy direct write returns REVIEW_REQUIRED and tells the agent to use prepare_write/commit_write instead. It does not fully spell out a decision tree for when archiving is appropriate, but the intended context is clearly implied.

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