projectbrain_archive_experience_claim

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

Without annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates that archiving retains storage, but does not explain whether the claim is hidden, accessible, reversible, or any side effects on related data.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, concisely stating the core functionality. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no wasted text.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description omits details on what archiving entails, the effect on queries, and the purpose of the optional 'reason' parameter.

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 adds no information about the parameters (project_id, claim_id, reason). Their meanings are entirely left to the schema field names.

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 clearly states the action ('archive'), the object ('local experience claim'), and the nuance ('keeping it in ProjectBrain storage'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add, review, or list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to archive vs. delete or review. There are no scenarios or prerequisites mentioned.

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