twining_archive_stale

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

The description thoroughly discloses side effects: decisions move to status 'archived' and are excluded from assemble/why, and blackboard entries are DELETED with a tombstone. It explicitly states that twining_unarchive does NOT restore blackboard entries, which is a critical irreversible behavior. With no annotations, this description fully carries the burden.

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 and packs a lot of information, but it's well-structured with dashes and semicolons. It front-loads the main purpose and follows with behavioral details. It's slightly dense but not overly verbose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, and the different consequences for decisions and blackboard entries. It explains reversibility and irreversibility, and the tombstone behavior. The reason parameters are described in the schema, so this is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, with detailed descriptions for reason and reasons. The description adds little beyond 'by ID' and the mention of reason in the tombstone context. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it archives a list of stale items by ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing twining_housekeeping and explaining distinct handling for decisions vs blackboard entries. The explicit mention of exclusion from assemble/why and the reversible/unreversible nature adds clarity.

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?

It provides a clear when-to-use by indicating 'typically the candidate IDs returned by twining_housekeeping with staleness_review: true'. It also gives context on reversibility and irreversibility for different item types, but it doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternative archive tools like twining_archive. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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