archive_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose that the archive is a soft-delete and that the agent stops picking up new work, which is valuable. However, it does not mention whether the action is reversible (restore_agent exists as a sibling), what happens to current/running tasks, or any permissions or side effects. Thus it provides some transparency but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main action ('Archive an agent') and adds essential clarifications in parentheses. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but covers the core purpose and immediate effect. However, it lacks important context such as reversibility, impact on existing tasks, and any prerequisites or restrictions. While the sibling restore_agent hints at undoability, the description itself does not provide that context, leaving some gaps for an agent invoking it.

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?

The schema covers only 50% of parameters (workspace_id has a description, id does not). The description does not elaborate on what 'id' refers to, leaving the primary parameter undocumented. It also does not mention that workspace_id is optional or explain its default behavior beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, adding little semantic value for parameters.

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 tool archives an agent, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from a hard delete by noting it is a soft-delete and further clarifies the effect by saying it stops picking up new work. This aligns with the sibling restore_agent, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool—when you want to softly delete an agent and prevent new work—but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like restore_agent or a potential hard delete. There are no exclusions or conditions stated, so the usage guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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