twining_archive

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: moving entries to an archive, preserving decisions and unresolved needs/warnings (with a specific resolution rule), and optionally posting a summary. It does not cover reversibility or authorization, but it provides enough behavioral context for safe use.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Each sentence adds essential information: purpose, preservation rules, optional summary. Very efficient.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers core behavior, parameter semantics, and side effects. It lacks details on error cases and sibling differentiation, but for typical usage it is sufficiently complete.

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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds meaningful context: explaining the 'before' parameter as ISO timestamp, linking preservation rules to 'keep_decisions' and 'keep_open_needs_warnings', and elaborating on need/warning resolution via 'relates_to'. This exceeds baseline expectation.

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 resource 'old blackboard entries', with specific behavior including preservation rules and optional summary. It distinguishes from the sibling 'twining_archive_stale' implicitly by detailing the preservation logic, though not explicitly, but purpose clarity is high.

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' or other siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer without directive.

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