Archive a thread

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond the title by disclosing that archiving hides the thread from the active list and is reversible. This provides important safety-relevant context (non-destructive, can be undone) even though it does not mention permissions or return values, which are less critical for such a simple operation.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb. Every word serves a purpose: 'Archive a thread' states the action, while the parenthetical adds the crucial behavioral details of hiding and reversibility without bloat.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, its effect, and reversibility. It does not describe the return value or edge cases, but the tool's simplicity makes those omissions less impactful. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the core behavior.

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 schema has a single required parameter, 'threadId', with no description. The tool description does not explicitly explain the parameter, but the phrase 'Archive a thread' implicitly ties threadId to the thread being archived, and the field name is self-explanatory. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description could have added more detail, but the single well-named parameter reduces ambiguity.

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 and resource ('Archive a thread') and immediately clarifies the effect ('hides it from the active list') and a key characteristic ('reversible'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like unarchive_thread, which restores archived threads.

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 the usage context: use this tool when you want to hide a thread from the active list, and the note 'reversible' hints that the action can be undone. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative 'unarchive_thread' or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance remains implicit rather than clearly contrasted with siblings.

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