skill_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral consequence (always injected into recall) and the condition under which this matters (weak query match). However, it does not address reversibility, permissions, or side effects on recall behavior beyond the stated injection.

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 two sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, the behavioral nuance is explained efficiently, and the intended use case is stated in a single clause.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description is largely complete: it explains the action, the effect, and the appropriate usage scenario. A note about reversibility or success/error behavior would improve it, but the current coverage is adequate.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the only parameter, 'id', with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the same concept, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource ('Archive a skill') and immediately clarifies the operational effect: it forces the skill to always be injected into recall even on weak query matches. This distinguishes it conceptually from the sibling skill_* tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 a clear target use case: 'critical SOPs that must always be available.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not provide exclusions or explicitly compare against alternatives such as normal recall or search, so it stops short of a 5.

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