av_archify_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the opt-in gate, the scope downgrade behavior, the optional external CLI validation, the exact validation.status outcome set, and the critical caveat that unvalidated/failed results must not be treated as verified artifacts.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries operational content, with little filler. It is somewhat dense as a single run-on block and could be organized more scanably, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description names the artifacts produced (Before/After JSON + sidecar) and the validation status contract, and it covers the required repo path and confirm gate. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema: the density/additive condition that triggers a downgrade to layers, and the meaning of validation.status values.

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 (export) and resource (this round's structural diff as an Archify IR sparse graph, delivered as Before/After JSON + sidecar), and its default-off behavior clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like av_session_report and av_status. An agent can tell what this produces without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition (human must verify evidence before passing confirm=true), the default posture (no export, no auto-graphing), and the conditional route (scope=changed by default, downgrade to layers when too dense or purely additive). These are concrete when/when-not rules rather than implied guidance.

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