archive_team

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly notes that archiving makes the team read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other effects (e.g., member access, reversibility via unarchive_team) or any required permissions.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The action and effect are front-loaded, making it quick to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers the core behavior. Could optionally mention reversibility (unarchive exists) for completeness, but not strictly necessary.

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% (team_id described in schema). The description adds no additional meaning to the single parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the action 'Archive' and the resource 'a team', with a parenthetical defining archiving as making it read-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_team (permanent removal) and unarchive_team (reversal).

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?

Implies that archiving is used to make a team read-only, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., delete_team) or when not to use it (e.g., if you need to retain full access). No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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