twining_archive_stale

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: decisions become archived (excluded from assemble/why), blackboard entries are dismissed, and items remain on disk with provenance preserved. It also notes that the reason is recorded as a finding in the audit trail.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Each sentence provides unique information without redundancy or fluff.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's effects and context. It covers archival status change, dismissal of blackboard entries, and data preservation. A slight gap is not detailing the exact return value, but that is acceptable.

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 value by specifying that ids are typically candidate IDs from twining_housekeeping, providing context beyond the schema description. It also clarifies that ids can be a mix of decision and blackboard IDs.

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 tool archives stale items by ID, specifically from twining_housekeeping with staleness_review: true. It explains the effect on decisions and blackboard entries, distinguishing it from a general archive tool.

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 explicitly ties usage to the output of twining_housekeeping, giving clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare it directly with the sibling twining_archive.

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