Archive a T3 thread

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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds the specific non-destructive detail about remote workspace files. However, it does not disclose what archiving does to the thread overall (e.g., whether it becomes unmodifiable or hidden) or the role of the idempotencyKey.

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 a single sentence with the main action front-loaded and a concise, relevant qualifier. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. However, the description lacks key contextual details such as the meaning of 'archive' in this system and the required idempotencyKey behavior, making the definition serviceable but not fully complete for a mutating operation.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. While threadId is inferable from its name and the tool's purpose, idempotencyKey is a required parameter whose semantics are entirely unexplained, leaving an agent without enough information to supply it correctly.

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 uses a specific verb 'Archive' with a clear resource 'thread' and adds a useful qualifier about preserving remote workspace files. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but 'archive' is distinct from interrupt/get/send operations, making the purpose clear.

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 a usage scenario—'archive without deleting files'—but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like t3_thread_interrupt or t3_thread_get. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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