Logically archive a user-library template

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior; the description adds valuable context by clarifying that files are retained and that the tool never hard-deletes. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the practical consequence of archiving.

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 first sentence states the core action and identifier resolution, the second adds retention behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 covers purpose, identifier resolution, and retention behavior. However, with all input parameters optional, it leaves ambiguity about parameter selection and precedence. It also does not mention any side effects beyond archiving, though the output schema likely handles return-value details.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of templateId, galleryId, and registrySourceId ('adapter-scoped'), but does not clarify the 'adapter' parameter or whether exactly one identifier is required when multiple are provided. The description adds some semantic value but omits important composition details.

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?

Description clearly identifies the action ('archive') and resource ('user-library template'), and the primary effect ('exclude the template from default search'). It also distinguishes this tool from deletion by explicitly stating 'Files are retained; this tool never hard-deletes a template.'

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 explaining the archival effect and acceptable identifier types, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or list exclusions. It lacks direct alternatives or 'use this instead' guidance.

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