archive_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that archiving is reversible and version-checked, but omits permissions, what archiving actually changes, error behavior on version mismatch, and whether archived items are hidden or moved.

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 sentence is short, front-loaded with the core action, and free of filler. Every clause contributes either the operation, its reversibility, or its concurrency constraint.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not tell the agent how to obtain expected_version, what archive state means operationally, or what happens on failure.

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 explain the two required parameters. It only hints at expected_version through 'concurrency protection' and says nothing about memory_id or version acquisition/error semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource: archive a memory. It also adds two distinguishing traits, reversibility and concurrency protection, but does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as restore_memory_revision or update_memory.

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 explicit guidance on when to use archive_memory versus alternatives like update_memory, move_memory, or restore_memory_revision. The reversible-archive implication is present, but the agent must infer the selection conditions.

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