codex_archive_thread

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only reveals one behavioral trait: refusal if active work. It does not mention whether archiving is destructive, requires permissions, affects other users, or has irreversible consequences – all critical for an agent to assess risk.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core action. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition. This is ideal for quick parsing by agents.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which can explain return values), the description lacks crucial completeness: no parameter semantics, no side effects, no prerequisites beyond the refusal condition. A tool with four parameters and a safety-critical refusal behavior needs more depth to be fully autonomous.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description provides no explanation for any of the four parameters (thread_id, project_id, timeout_seconds, refresh_catalog). The agent receives no guidance on their meaning, valid values, or relationships, making correct invocation difficult.

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 resource ('Codex thread'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'codex_unarchive_thread' by implication. However, it does not elaborate on what archiving entails (e.g., whether it hides, disables, or deletes the thread), which could cause ambiguity.

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 a clear condition for not using the tool ('Refuses to run while the thread has active work'), which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'codex_unarchive_thread' or 'codex_start_thread_compaction', leaving the decision partly to context.

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