archive_run

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses that the tool hides the run without deletion and is reversible, but it does not specify any prerequisites (e.g., run must be completed), consequences for run state, or whether permissions are required. Given the simple action, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences that efficiently convey the purpose, effect, and reversibility. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, reversibility, and distinguishes from deletion. It slightly lacks guidance on when not to use or state requirements, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (runId). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation without adding extra value.

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 verb 'Archive', the resource 'a run', and specifies the effect: hides from default list without deletion. It also mentions reversibility, distinguishing it from delete_run and unarchive_run.

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 contrasts archiving with deletion ('without deleting it') and mentions the reverse tool (unarchive_run). It provides context for when to use (to hide from default list) but does not explicitly exclude scenarios like runs that are currently running or provide alternatives like cancel_run.

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