person_archive

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it is a soft retire (not a hard delete), it writes a tombstone capturing who/when/why, the card drops out of identity's room block and person_list, and it rejects writes until restored. This is exactly the reversibility/scope context the readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false annotations leave open, and it is consistent with them.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the consequences follow. Every clause carries information.

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, and the description adequately covers what the operation does to the card and how to reverse it. It does not describe any confirmation or response behavior, but for a reversible mutation whose safety profile is already carried by annotations, nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so both "slug" and "reason" are already documented. The description's "who, when, why" framing loosely reinforces the reason parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 person card with a tombstone") and distinguishes itself from the sibling reverse operation by naming person_restore. An agent can tell it apart from person_restore, person_write, and forget without inspecting schemas.

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 reversibility path ("until person_restore") is mentioned, implicitly routing to a sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus alternatives like person_prune or forget. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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