archive_conversations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that conversations are moved to an archive directory and mentions the dry_run parameter for preview. However, it does not specify reversibility, permission requirements, or what constitutes 'modification'.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the goal, the second explains the mechanism. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 rich context (two well-described parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral traits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds marginal value by rephrasing the days condition but does not clarify allowed ranges or edge cases. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Archive', the target 'old/inactive conversations', the purpose 'free up space', and the condition based on days of inactivity. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like cleanup_backups or enforce_retention.

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 (for archiving inactive conversations) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools among the 40+ siblings. No guidance on prerequisites or side effects.

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