documents_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the immediate visual effect and does not mention reversibility, required permissions, whether the document remains searchable/accessible, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently captures the action and outcome for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the basic operation is understandable. However, without annotations or any mention of reversibility/access side effects, the description is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding between archive and related tools like delete or restore.

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 input schema has full coverage: one required parameter 'id' with description 'Document ID'. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('a document') and an observable outcome ('hide it from the main view'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like documents_delete, documents_restore, and documents_move, even without naming alternatives.

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 phrase 'hide it from the main view' implies a use case—decluttering the main view without permanently deleting—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus delete, restore, or unpublish. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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