tg_archive

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

There are no annotations, and the description discloses almost no behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens to the chat upon archiving. The phrases 'move' and 'back out' give only a minimal hint of state change.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant content. It is front-loaded with the core action and earns its place without wasting words.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks crucial details such as chat identifier format, undo semantics, and behavioral effects. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only minimally explains the 'undo' parameter via 'or back out of it.' The 'chat' parameter format is entirely unaddressed. While parameter names are self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action: moving a chat to the archive or back out. It uses a specific verb+resource and is distinguishable from siblings by its archive focus, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it misses the highest score.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description implies usage for archiving/unarchiving but does not explain when to prefer this over chat deletion, muting, or other sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision support.

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