archive_document

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the soft-delete behavior (hides from normal views but is recoverable), and it warns of high impact and the need for user confirmation. This provides meaningful context that annotations alone (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) do not convey, without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded with a warning symbol and 'HIGH-IMPACT' label, immediately indicating criticality. The three sentences earn their place: warning, action, restoration path, and confirmation instruction. No wasted words.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden. It covers the action, effects, reversibility, and usage instruction, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool safely.

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 description covers the only parameter (document_id) at 100%, so the schema already provides full meaning. The description does not add additional context about the parameter, but this is unnecessary for a simple single-parameter tool. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 an IT Glue document, providing specific details about the soft-delete behavior and recoverability. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool unarchive_document by explicitly naming it as the restore operation.

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 tells the user to confirm before invoking, indicating it is a high-impact action. It also names unarchive_document as the tool to restore, providing clear guidance on when to use the alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other tools like delete_document or hard-delete scenarios.

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