knowledge_archive

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by naming the actual state change (status set to archived), the downstream effects (excluded from knowledge_recall and knowledge_maintain), and the recovery path (fully recoverable via knowledge_restore). It does not cover permission/auth requirements, which keeps it just short of a 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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers scope, exclusions, recovery, and alternatives in three tight sentences with no filler. Every sentence carries a distinct decision-relevant fact.

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?

No output schema, but the description fully covers what changes, what is excluded elsewhere, recoverability, and the sibling alternative needed for merges. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds framing by calling 'note' a 'tombstone note' explaining retirement, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's baseline. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Soft-retire a knowledge page: set its status to archived') and explicitly distinguishes itself from knowledge_restore (recovery), knowledge_supersede (dedup merges), and generic deletion. An agent can identify the exact operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Use this instead of deletion when the page may need to be audited or recovered') and when-to-use-something-else ('For deduplication merges, prefer knowledge_supersede'). Names the alternative and the selecting condition, leaving nothing to inference.

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