archive event

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral details: the action is reversible, linked data is preserved, and a restore_id is returned. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and gives an agent a clear model of the operation's side effects.

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 a single concise sentence with a parenthetical covering cost and auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes no redundant phrasing.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value details are covered elsewhere. The description explains reversibility, data preservation, and the idempotency requirement. It mentions the ownership constraint ('owned event') but does not clarify the optional 'reason' parameter or any additional permissions beyond API key. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 25% (only idempotency_key described as alias for request_id). The description adds meaning to request_id ('use a new one for each action') but leaves event_id and reason unexplained. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate more, but it only partially does so.

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?

States a specific verb ('archive') and resource ('owned event'), and the qualifier 'reversibly' distinguishes it from permanent deletion (delete_event) and aligns with the sibling restore_event. Mentions preserving linked data and returning a restore_id, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Provides concrete guidance to use a new request_id per action, which is useful for idempotency. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like delete_event or restore_event, though the word 'reversibly' implicitly suggests it for non-permanent archival. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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