Archive a post

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals the operation is destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds value by clarifying the exact transformation (movement to Archived/) and edge-case behavior for categorized and uncategorized posts, which goes beyond the annotation.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then provides the two most useful edge cases. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity (3 params, no nested objects), the destructive annotation, and the complete schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. It explains the core operation and edge cases, though it does not mention return values or reversibility; these are minor given the annotations and simplicity.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Archives') and resource ('a post'), then precisely explains the behavior: moving the post to the Archived/ category. It also gives concrete examples for category preservation and uncategorized posts, making the tool's scope unmistakable and distinct from update/ship/delete siblings.

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 behavior strongly implies when to use it: whenever a post should be archived rather than edited, shipped, or deleted. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is inferred from the verb and examples rather than stated.

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