Archive Jules Session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the key effect (hidden from default list), clarifies that the session is not deleted, and implies reversibility by mentioning restore via unarchive. This is fully transparent for a simple archival operation.

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 the primary action and key nuance ('without deleting it') front-loaded. The second sentence points to the sibling tool for restoration. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, the side-effect-free behavior (hide only), and how to reverse it. The sibling list supports the context, and the description aligns well with the tool's minimal scope.

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 coverage is 100% with 'sessionId' described as 'Session ID to archive'. The description adds no additional parameter context, but since the schema already documents the parameter fully, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra semantics are needed for a single self-explanatory parameter.

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: 'Archive a Jules session to hide it from the default session list without deleting it.' The verb 'Archive' is specific, and the resource 'Jules session' is explicit. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with deletion and naming the corresponding unarchive tool.

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 clear context: use this to hide a session without deleting it. It explicitly directs to 'jules_unarchive_session' as the way to restore, effectively serving as both an alternative and a when-not-to-use (if you want to fully remove, you'd use delete instead). This is excellent usage guidance.

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