archive_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It doesn't specify whether archiving is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects document accessibility, or has side effects (e.g., removing from regular listings). This leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed for a mutation 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?

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence ('Archive a document.'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. For a simple tool, this brevity is appropriate, though it may sacrifice clarity for conciseness.

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 complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter details, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no semantic information about 'documentId' (e.g., format, source, or constraints). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear beyond its name.

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 states the action ('Archive') and resource ('a document'), which provides a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it lacks specificity about what 'archive' means in this context (e.g., moving to an archived state vs. permanent deletion) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_archive_documents' or 'unarchive_document', making it vague in comparison.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot archive already archived documents), or related tools like 'unarchive_document' for reversal or 'list_archived_documents' for viewing archived items, leaving usage unclear.

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