Archive entity

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: archived entities disappear from lists and pickers, and built-in entities cannot be archived. It could disclose more about reversibility or permission requirements, but it meaningfully exceeds the structured hints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the most important constraint. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter, destructive mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the key behavior and a critical caveat. It is nearly complete, though it leaves some operational details unstated, such as whether archiving is reversible or what permissions are required.

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% and the single required parameter entityId is fully documented in the schema as an entity ID with a vg_enti_ prefix example. The description does not add syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource, 'Archive an entity,' and states the observable effect: it no longer appears in lists or pickers. It also distinguishes archive behavior from sibling retrieval and listing tools by focusing on removal from visibility, making the intent clear without opening schemas.

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 usage by stating the effect and a key exclusion: built-in entities cannot be archived. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose archive_entity over update_entity, remove_entity_reference, or other mutation tools, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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