执行已预览的归档或恢复

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: the token is single-use, the operation moves the user's skill directory, a restore record is retained, and system/plugin scopes are read-only. It stops short of describing what happens on an expired or reused token or what the call returns.

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 clauses with zero waste; the safety precondition is front-loaded ahead of the effect and scope, which is exactly the order an agent needs for a destructive commit tool.

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 with no output schema, the description covers precondition, effect, recoverability, and scope boundaries. The remaining gap is failure/return behavior, which is minor given the simplicity of the interface.

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 0% and the single token param is only typed as a UUID, so the description must carry the meaning — it does, explaining that the token is a one-time preview token tied to a specific preview. It omits where the token comes from (the preview_* tools) and its lifetime/error semantics, keeping it below a 5.

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 concrete verb+object: moves the user's skill directory using a preview token, and the title adds that it covers both archive and restore. An agent can tell this is the commit step of the preview workflow, though the description itself never names preview_skill_archive/preview_skill_restore as the source of the token.

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?

Explicit gating precondition: call only after the user has explicitly requested execution for that specific preview, which also implies the when-not case (no explicit request → don't call). It does not name the alternatives (cancel_skill_plan, the preview_* tools) that an agent should reach for instead, so routing relies on inference from the sibling list.

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