archive

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

Description confirms idempotency (matching idempotentHint=True) and discloses writing a note and setting archived_at. Annotations show no readOnly or destructive hints, and description adds specific behavioral details beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences with three key points: purpose, idempotency, exclusion behavior. No redundancy, front-loaded with action.

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?

Covers main effects and behavioral context. Output schema exists, so return values are handled. Could mention prerequisites or error conditions, but overall sufficient for a simple archival tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'reason' parameter via 'write kind=... note with reason' but does not address 'actor' or 'originator'. 'id' is implicit. Adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 tool's purpose: 'Archive an idea' with specific side effects (sets archived_at, writes note). It also explains the consequence for default listings. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'annotate'.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Archived ideas are excluded by default from list/search/dump.' This implies when to use archive (to hide ideas). However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use are given.

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