archive_conversation

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as reversibility, side effects, or permission requirements, but it offers none. The single sentence merely names the operation without explaining consequences, leaving the agent uninformed about what archiving actually does.

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 one short sentence with no unnecessary words, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool. However, its brevity is also a weakness because it contains zero substantive details, though the dimension focuses on efficient length rather than informational richness.

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 simplicity of the tool and the presence of a schema, the description still fails to cover important contextual aspects such as what happens to the conversation after archiving, whether it can be unarchived, or how it differs from deleting. The lack of annotations and output schema increases the need for such details, making the description incomplete.

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 fully documents the single parameter with a clear description, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description does not mention the parameter or add any syntax/format context, but 100% schema coverage justifies a baseline score of 3.

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 'Archives a conversation' is a direct restatement of the tool name, providing no additional clarity or detail about the operation's scope or meaning. It fulfills the minimum requirement of stating the action and object but adds no informational value beyond the name itself.

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 indications are given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_conversation_favorite or delete_channel. The description lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., ownership or membership), appropriate scenarios, or differences from related conversation tools.

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