codex_archive_thread

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions asynchronous operation via command lane and return of commandId, but lacks details on destructive effects, reversibility (though a sibling unarchive tool exists), auth requirements, or side effects. The description does not contradict annotations but is insufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding a precondition and follow-up. Every sentence adds value; 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?

Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It addresses use precondition and follow-up but does not document parameter meanings or detailed behavior. The agent would need to infer too much.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions that a commandId is returned, but gives no guidance on thread_id, project_id, timeout_seconds, or refresh_catalog. The agent has no help understanding parameter semantics.

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') and the resource ('a known Codex thread'), and specifies the mechanism ('through the worker or app-server command lane'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'codex_unarchive_thread' by indicating the thread should have no active work, implying a complementary use case.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('only when the thread has no active work') and recommends a follow-up action ('Next poll codex_get_worker_command_status when commandId is returned.'). It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the precondition is clear.

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