archive_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: this is a 'soft status change,' meaning it is not a hard deletion. However, it does not explain whether the operation is reversible, what happens to associated items, or what side effects may occur beyond the status change.

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 highly concise: two short sentences, no filler, and the key constraints are front-loaded. Each phrase adds meaningful information: the action, the role restriction, and the non-destructive nature of the change.

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?

Given that this is a simple status-change tool with only two parameters and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete in framing the action. However, the absence of parameter documentation and any guidance on expected behavior or reversibility leaves notable gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides only minimal parameter context. 'Integrator-only' hints at the purpose of actor_role, but workspace_id and actor_role are otherwise undocumented. The description does not adequately compensate for the absence of parameter descriptions in the input schema.

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 states a specific action ('Archive') and resource ('workspace'), and clarifies the nature of the operation as a 'soft status change.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_workspace, list_workspaces, and get_workspace_detail, which perform create/read operations rather than state changes.

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 communicates an important usage constraint: 'Integrator-only.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly provided.

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