archive_claude_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool never moves, edits, or deletes the JSONL transcript, which is a critical non-destructive guarantee. However, it does not explain what 'archive' actually changes in the catalog (e.g., whether the session becomes hidden), nor does it describe return values or side effects. This is a strong but incomplete disclosure.

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, each earning its place. The first states the primary action; the second provides a key clarifier about non-destructiveness. Front-loaded and free of redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and a critical caveat. It does not mention return values or the effect on catalog visibility, which would enhance completeness, but the tool's simplicity keeps it reasonably complete.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not mention 'sessionId' or 'cwd' at all. Names alone are insufficient, especially 'cwd' which is ambiguous despite a default of '/root'. The description adds zero value for parameter understanding.

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' and identifies both the resource ('Claude conversation') and the context ('MCP-local catalog'). It also clarifies what it does NOT do (move/edit/delete the transcript), which helps distinguish it from destructive operations. This clearly differentiates from siblings like 'unarchive_claude_session'.

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 usage by describing the archival function and noting it leaves the transcript untouched, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., rename, delete) or mention any prerequisites. The presence of 'unarchive_claude_session' as a sibling suggests reversibility, but that is not stated in the description.

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