archive_hub_profile

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, but the description adds valuable context: it hides the profile while preserving content. This clarifies the nature of the operation beyond the raw annotation flags, though it doesn't mention reversibility (restore_hub_profile exists as a sibling).

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 and effect are front-loaded, and the parameter hint is tucked into the second sentence. Every word 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 simple mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the essential semantics and gives one parameter source. It doesn't mention error cases or the restore option, but given the sibling list and the concise nature, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 compensate. It provides a useful hint for workspace_id, pointing to list_workspaces() as a source. However, hub_profile_id is left entirely unexplained, relying on the parameter name alone. Partial compensation for a two-parameter tool.

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 the action 'Archive a hub profile' with a clear resource, and clarifies the outcome with 'hidden from listings, content preserved'. This distinguishes it from destructive siblings like delete_hub_profile and reversible restore_hub_profile, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 it by noting content preservation, which hints at alternatives like delete, but it never explicitly says 'use this when you want to retain content' or mentions when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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