needfix_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the crucial traits: the archive is soft (not a destructive hard delete), audited, and restorable. It still omits permission/auth requirements and any side effects on linked tasks, which is why it doesn't reach 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the important qualifiers in a compact parenthetical and zero filler. It is tight and readable.

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 low-complexity two-parameter mutation the definition covers the key behavioral fact (recoverable soft archive), but it leaves the 'reason' parameter and any auth/return expectations undocumented, and with no annotations and no output schema that leaves real gaps.

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% across two parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only implies the target entity ('a NeedFix'); it says nothing about the optional 'reason' parameter or its purpose. The required needfix_id is inferred rather than stated.

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 ('NeedFix') with scope qualifiers ('explicitly', 'soft, audited, restorable'). It is distinguishable from needfix_purge by the 'restorable' hint, but it never names the sibling it contrasts with (needfix_restore/needfix_purge), so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named despite siblings like needfix_restore, needfix_purge, and the dashboard needfix variants existing. 'Explicitly' hints that archiving is intentionally user-triggered rather than automatic, but this is left implicit.

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