archive_episode

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotency. The description adds context that the caller pre-computes data and that this is an archive operation. It does not explain the effect of multiple calls, overwriting behavior, or any side effects beyond archiving, but it is not contradictory.

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 extremely concise, comprising two short sentences that convey the essential purpose and a key requirement. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should hint at what the tool returns (e.g., success status or episode ID). It does not. Additionally, it does not cover prerequisites like permissions or the effect of missing optional parameters. The description is too brief for the complexity of 7 parameters.

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%, with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool's description does not add per-parameter meaning, but the schema already provides adequate semantics. 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') and resource ('conversation episode'), and specifies that the caller pre-computes summary, keywords, and resolved status. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_episode' or 'list_episodes', but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 that the caller must handle LLM processing before calling this tool, which is a usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions.

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