archive_channel

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds that the operation is reversible, which is useful but doesn't significantly expand beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 one parameter and existing annotations, the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: action, input format, reversibility, and idempotency. No gaps given 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 schema describes the 'channel' parameter as a trimmed string, but the description adds that it accepts 'channel name or ID,' providing critical context for correct invocation. This goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 explicitly states 'Archive a Huly channel by channel name or ID,' providing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like unarchive_channel and other channel operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions reversibility with unarchive_channel and idempotency when already archived, offering guidance on when to use the tool. While it could explicitly state when not to use, the provided context is sufficient for typical use.

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