archive_tuning_session

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

The description adds some behavioral context by stating the audit trail is preserved, but with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose other important aspects such as whether the session becomes read-only, reversibility of archiving, or required permissions.

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 (10 words) that is front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 has a required parameter and belongs to a large set of siblings, the description provides insufficient context. It omits mention of required fields, optional parameters, and expected usage patterns.

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 0% and the description does not elaborate on either parameter. While session_id is self-explanatory, the note parameter's purpose and usage remain unclear.

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 verb 'archive' and the resource 'interactive tuning session', and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'without deleting its audit trail', which differentiates it from deletion-focused tools like delete_preview_run and cleanup_tuning_sessions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like close_tuning_session or summarize_tuning_session. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers.

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