archive_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait (soft-delete and restorability), which is valuable, but it omits other context such as whether the channel is still visible in active lists, if any side effects occur, or the mechanism for restoration. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 concise sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately provides key context about reversibility, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it states the action and the reversible nature. It does not mention the associated unarchive workflow, but the sibling tool names (unarchive_channel, list_archived_channels) fill that gap. Overall, it is sufficient for the tool's scope.

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 describes the single parameter 'id' as 'Channel ID' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, but since the schema already covers it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. There is no need for the description to replicate schema information.

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 action ('Archive a channel') with a specific resource and verb, and the parenthetical 'soft-delete, can be restored later' distinguishes it from a hard delete (delete_channel) and aligns with unarchive_channel. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 through 'soft-delete, can be restored later'—suggesting it's for temporary removal rather than permanent deletion—but it does not explicitly name when to use this versus alternatives like delete_channel or unarchive_channel. The guidance is implicit, not explicit.

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