archive trip

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds valuable context: it's reversible, preserves linked data, returns a restore_id, and requires an API key. The note about using a new request_id for each action is also behavioral. 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 extremely concise: two sentences that state the core purpose first, then add behavioral details and a critical usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place, and there's no filler or repetition.

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, the description covers the essential points: what it does, reversibility, linked data preservation, return value (restore_id), and idempotency guidance. It omits details about optional parameters like reason, but those are not critical for calling the tool. The output schema exists, so return details are handled there. Overall, it's nearly complete for the tool's 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 coverage is only 25% (idempotency_key has a description), and the description does not explain trip_id or reason. However, it does clarify that request_id should be new for each action, which adds meaning beyond the schema. For the other parameters, the schema itself lacks descriptions, and the description doesn't compensate, so it's a partial but not complete job.

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 verb (archive), the resource (one owned trip), and key behavioral aspects (reversible, preserves linked data, returns restore_id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like restore_trip by emphasizing reversibility, but it doesn't explicitly name alternative archive tools for other resource types, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 gives an explicit instruction about using a new request_id for each intended action, which is a concrete usage guideline. However, it doesn't specify when to choose archive_trip over alternatives like delete_event or other archive_* tools; the guidance is implicit through the 'reversible' and 'preserve' wording but lacks explicit when/not conditions.

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