archive_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two genuine traits: the deletion is soft (implying recoverability) and the call is idempotent. It omits permissions required, effect on the agent's runs/data, and whether the operation can be undone, which is a meaningful gap for a destructive-leaning 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?

Two terse fragments, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. It is efficient, though so minimal that it may under-serve rather than being genuinely well-structured.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are nominally present. However, the absence of any guidance on reversibility, side effects, or routing against agent_lifecycle leaves gaps an agent would need filled before invoking it confidently.

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% for the single 'id' parameter ('Agent id'), so the schema already documents the input fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond that, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 verb 'Archive' plus the tool name 'archive_agent' makes the operation on the agent resource unambiguous, and the parenthetical '(soft-delete)' sharpens what archiving means. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby 'agent_lifecycle' sibling, so an agent must infer which of the two handles archiving.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agent_lifecycle or cancel_run, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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