ytptube_set_history_archive

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the mutation aspect. The description adds a small detail about the 'configured archive file', which provides some context beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on side effects or failure modes.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It clearly states the action and target, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has a simple schema and annotations that cover the destructive/read-only aspects. The description provides core behavior but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., what happens if the archive file is not configured) and specific consequences. For a simple toggle, it is mostly 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?

The description implies that 'archived' boolean controls archive vs unarchive, giving semantic meaning to the parameter. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but with only two params (id and archived), the meaning is derivable even if not explicitly mapped.

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 or unarchive' and a clear resource 'history item', plus a method 'using its configured archive file'. This distinguishes it from siblings like ytptube_list_archive (which lists archives) and ytptube_get_history_item (which retrieves items).

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 stating the action (archive/unarchive a history item), but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it note exclusions. There is no reference to other history tools, but the intended context is reasonably clear.

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