archive_item

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'soft' nuance (state change rather than physical removal), but omits whether the item disappears from list_items, whether it blocks downstream transactions, or what is required to restore it.

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 three-word sentence with zero filler and the key qualifier ('soft') front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 two-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves the agent guessing on identifier semantics, side effects, and reversibility. Annotations cover safety only; the rest of the burden is unfilled.

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% and both parameters (workspaceId, itemId) are bare strings with no format, scope, or constraint notes. The description adds nothing about which item/workspace identifiers are expected, so the documentation gap is left entirely unfilled.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('archive an item') and the '(soft)' qualifier signals it is not a hard delete, which is meaningful next to siblings like delete_item and unarchive_item. It stops short of naming any sibling to differentiate further.

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: nothing says how this differs from delete_item, unarchive_item, or serial_archive/asset_archive, and no prerequisites (permissions, item state) are mentioned. The agent must infer the routing entirely from the tool name.

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