archive_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states that archiving prevents new runs, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details about whether existing runs continue, if the action is reversible (implied by unarchive_agent), or required permissions. Basic transparency is present but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second lists the argument. There is zero wasted text, and the important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description provides sufficient context. It explains the action's effect and gives a param example. It could mention the return value type, but that is covered by the output schema.

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 0% description coverage, but the description adds significant value by providing an example format ('for example bc-...') for the agent_id parameter. This hints at the expected identifier pattern, which goes beyond the schema's type and title.

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 clearly states the verb 'archive' and the resource 'agent', and explains the effect: 'so it cannot accept new runs'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like unarchive_agent, delete_agent, and list_agents.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_agent or unarchive_agent. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or how to decide between archiving and other actions.

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