archive_stream

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds a concrete behavioral consequence: archived streams reject new messages. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying what archiving means operationally, though it does not mention reversibility or effects on existing messages.

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 only two sentences, both of which add necessary information: the primary action and its key consequence. There is no redundancy or filler, and the most important information 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 tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context to use it correctly: what it does and what happens after archive. It does not detail return values or error cases, but those are less critical given the simplicity of the operation.

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%—the only parameter, 'permalink', is already described as 'Stream permalink'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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') with a clear resource ('a message stream') and states the resulting behavior ('Archived streams reject new messages'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like send_to_stream or update_stream.

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 clearly indicates the intended effect—after archiving, new messages are rejected—so an agent knows to use this tool when it wants to stop new messages on a stream. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a single-purpose archive operation.

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