archive_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'archive' without explaining the consequences (e.g., reversible? hidden from lists?), permission requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap even for a simple 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 a single, direct sentence that conveys all the essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easily scannable and appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description states the core operation but omits behavioral context that would be useful, such as the reversible nature of archiving or prerequisites. It is minimally viable but not fully informative.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' which clarifies that 'id' is the article identifier, but adds no further meaning about the value format or source. The bare reference to ID is minimal and relies on the parameter name being self-explanatory.

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') and the resource ('a Knowledge Base Article') with the specific scope ('by ID'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like unarchive_article or delete_article by using the specific verb 'archive'.

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 when you want to archive an article, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over delete_article or unarchive_article. There are no alternatives or exclusions mentioned, leaving the context to be inferred from the verb alone.

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