vast_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 explicitly discloses that the operation is a soft-delete and reversible ('can be restored later'), which is the most critical behavioral trait. It does not mention permissions or response format, but for a simple one-parameter archive, this is adequate.

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, efficient sentence with a helpful parenthetical. Every word earns its place and the key nuance (soft-delete) is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficient. It covers the operational effect (soft-delete) and reversibility. It could mention prerequisites or follow-up actions, but given the simplicity of the tool, the missing details are not critical.

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 100% with 'id' described as 'VAST channel ID'. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource (VAST channel), and clarifies it's a soft-delete that can be restored. This clearly distinguishes it from hard-delete siblings like vast_delete_channel and restore operations like vast_unarchive_channel.

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 provides clear context that this is a soft-delete (non-destructive) operation, implying it should be used over permanent deletion. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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