tg_archive

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

Annotations already convey that the tool mutates state, is idiempotent, is non-destructive, and operates in an open world. The description adds the toggle direction, but does not disclose side effects such as chat visibility changes or notifications. No annotation contradiction.

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?

A single, tight sentence with no filler. The verb and operation are front-loaded, and both directions are conveyed in a compact way.

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 two-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description is serviceable. However, it omits parameter semantics for the required chat field and does not explicitly state the undo flag's behavior, leaving an agent to infer part of the invocation contract.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the undo behavior with 'or back out', but gives no meaning for the required 'chat' parameter, such as expected identifier format or how the boolean maps to archive vs unarchive.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and a clear resource ('a chat'), and explicitly covers both directions: into the archive and back out. This distinguishes it from siblings like tg_delete, tg_leave, and tg_mute.

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 two relevant use cases are clearly stated: archive a chat or unarchive it. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous for a simple toggle tool.

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