twining_archive

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that entries are moved to an archive file and that decision entries are preserved, but does not state whether the operation is destructive, if it requires specific permissions, or what the archive file entails.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.

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 simple tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior: archiving old entries, preserving decisions, and optional summary. It implies removal from the active blackboard via 'moves to an archive file', which is sufficient. Could mention the archive file location or implications, but not critical.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it relates 'preserving decision entries' to the keep_decisions parameter and 'optionally posts a summary' to summarize. The before parameter is referenced as 'older than a cutoff timestamp', which is already in the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it archives old blackboard entries, moves them to an archive file, and preserves decision entries. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'twining_archive_stale', which likely performs a similar function.

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 'twining_archive_stale'. The description implies usage for archiving old entries but lacks context or exclusion criteria.

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