archive_document

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

The description explains key behavioral traits beyond annotations: documents are removed from collections but remain searchable and can be found via search or the archive list. This adds significant context to the destructiveHint annotation, and there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, an important note in bold, bullet points for usage, and a separate Args section. It is concise with no wasted words, fitting the tool's simplicity.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavior, usage guidelines, parameters, and return value. The presence of an output schema (not shown) further supports completeness.

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?

There is only one parameter (document_id), and the description provides a brief yet meaningful explanation ('The document ID to archive'). Given 0% schema coverage, this description compensates adequately, though it could include a format or example.

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-resource combination ('Archives a document') and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_document by emphasizing preservation and the fact that documents remain searchable but are removed from active use.

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 lists explicit use cases (e.g., removing outdated documents, cleaning up collections) and implies when not to use it (e.g., if deletion or permanent removal is intended). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context from siblings is clear.

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