archive_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the reversible nature (move in/out) but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether archiving removes from main list, affects notifications, or requires specific permissions). Behavioral details beyond the basic toggle are missing.

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 without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential action. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose, so not perfect.

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 low complexity, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values (though output schema exists), edge cases (e.g., archiving already archived chat), or the effect of the 'unarchive' parameter. An agent has limited information to use the tool correctly.

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 description does not explain the parameters beyond implying a toggle. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description does not clarify that 'unarchive' controls direction or what the 'chat' parameter represents (identifier). Agents must infer meaning from context, which is insufficient.

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: moving a chat into or out of the archive folder. It specifies the resource (chat) and the operation (archive/unarchive) with the Chinese phrase '移入...或移出来'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pin_chat, mute_chat, etc.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for chat management (mute, pin, delete, etc.), an agent needs context on when to archive vs. other actions. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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