archive_reflection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the soft-delete behavior and effect on listings/relevance, but does not mention reversibility, permission requirements, or side effects. Partial transparency, missing details on whether the operation can be undone.

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?

A single concise sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the effect and clarification of soft delete. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

The description covers the primary purpose and effect for a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema. However, it lacks information about the return value (confirmation or details) and does not clarify whether the operation is reversible, leaving some context gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds 'by id' which is redundant with the schema. No additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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), resource (reflection by id), and effect (soft delete, hidden from listings/relevance). It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_entities (general entities) and forget_memory (memories), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is used for soft-deleting reflections to hide them from default views, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., delete_entities, archive_entities) or state when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative guidance is provided.

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