archive_target

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: archiving is a soft delete that removes from scheduling picker but retains history, archives cancel future sessions, and unarchiving does not restore cancelled sessions. The return format is also given.

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 well-structured with bullet points and bold text, but it is slightly verbose. It effectively communicates key points without redundancy.

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 output schema exists and the description covers all main aspects (soft delete, cancellation side effect, unarchive limitations), it is complete for a simple two-parameter tool.

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?

Though schema coverage is 0%, the description explains target_id as a snowflake string ID and archived boolean with default True and meanings for True/False, adding value beyond the schema.

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 tool archives/unarchives teaching targets (students/classes) as a soft delete, with a distinct purpose from siblings like create_teach_target or list_teach_targets.

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 explains when to archive (to soft delete) and the side effects (cancels future sessions, unarchiving does not restore). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools like hard delete or other target management operations.

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