can_archive

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

The description says it checks permission, which aligns with the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations. However, it does not elaborate on the return type or any potential side effects beyond what the annotations already indicate.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single clear sentence. It wastes no words and is easy to parse.

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?

The description is minimal but sufficient for a permission check. It does not mention the output format or error conditions, but these are likely standard for permission tools in this API. Still, the lack of any detail about the response makes it slightly less complete.

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?

The description only provides a partial explanation for workspace_id, noting that available IDs come from list_workspaces(). It fails to explain the meaning or allowed values for target_id and target_type, leaving them as generic 'Target Id' and 'Target Type' from the schema without additional context.

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 states the tool's purpose: to check whether the current user can archive a target. This is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'can_read' or 'can_edit', which check other permissions.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be called before performing an archive operation or how it differs from the various 'archive_*' commands.

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