archive_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently: it explains the move-to-archive side effect, the checkpoint and SHA-256, that nothing is deleted, that the chain verifies, and that open incidents/kept references remain live. It also discloses the return behavior including the zero-write case.

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 dense, well-structured sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every clause adds behaviorally relevant detail, and there is no redundant restatement of the schema or name.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers the main effect, safety guarantees, verification implications, and return value. It falls short only in lacking explicit usage/alternative guidance and any hint about the `actor` parameter's role.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives real meaning to `keep_days` ('entries older than `keep_days`'), which is the only required parameter. The optional `actor` parameter is not explained, but since it has a default and is optional, the core invocation semantics are still clear.

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 states a specific operation ('Rotate the action ledger') and resource, with a clear threshold (`keep_days`), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like `retention` or `sweep_partitions`, so it misses the sibling-differentiation that would earn a 5.

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 operation is described clearly enough that an agent can infer it is for archiving old action-ledger entries, and the 'nothing old enough' case is handled. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other retention or partition tools, nor any when-not-to-use caveats.

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