@git-fabric/chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool performs a mutation (archive action), archived sessions are hidden from default view but remain accessible via search and can be resumed. It doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('Archive a session') followed by essential behavioral context in one concise sentence. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or wasted information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context on what archiving does but lacks details on permissions, return values, or error handling. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps given the complexity of a state-changing operation.

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 100%, with the schema fully documenting the single parameter (sessionId as UUID). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating further.

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 specific action ('Archive a session') and resource ('session'), distinguishing it from siblings like chat_session_delete (destructive removal) and chat_session_list (viewing). It provides precise scope by explaining what happens to archived sessions.

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 context by stating archived sessions are 'hidden from the default list but remain searchable and resumable,' suggesting when to use this versus deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like chat_session_delete or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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