Archive a session

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

The annotations already mark this as non-read-only and idempotent, but the description adds the key behavioral detail that archiving hides the session from the default list and that the API default list excludes archived sessions. It also discloses reversibility by naming the unarchive sibling.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action and the second explains the consequence and the inverse operation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter archive operation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the side effect, and the restoration path. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The sole parameter session_id is fully described in the schema (The Jules session ID to archive), so the description adds no further parameter semantics. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, this is adequate.

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 the specific verb 'Archive' and names the resource 'Jules session,' clearly distinguishing this from the sibling operations (delete, create, unarchive). It also explicitly names the inverse operation jules_unarchive_session, so an agent can tell these tools apart.

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?

It states the effect (archived sessions are hidden from the default list) and points to jules_unarchive_session for restoration. This gives an agent the context for when archiving is appropriate, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like permanent deletion via jules_delete_session.

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