Archive a post

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying how the post is moved to the Archived/ category, including handling of category subpaths (e.g., 'dev/docs' becomes 'Archived/dev/docs'). This is useful for understanding the exact effect of the tool.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous information. Every word adds value: the first defines the primary action, the second clarifies edge cases for category paths.

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 archive operation with a destructiveHint, the description explains the core behavior and category handling. It does not cover reversibility, impact on comments, or team requirements, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of the destructiveHint, it is adequately complete.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it implicitly reinforces the postNumber and teamName roles. Baseline 3 is 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 title and description clearly state the tool archives a post by moving it to the Archived/ category. It specifies the verb (archives) and resource (post), and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete or update by describing the archiving behavior with category path details.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like esa_delete_post or esa_update_post. It does not mention prerequisites, team name requirements (though schema hints at esa_get_teams), or scenarios where archiving is preferred.

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