Archive Codex Agent

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

Annotations already disclose mutation, destructiveness, and idempotence. The description adds the precondition about active turns being interrupted first, which is useful. However, it does not explain what 'archive' does to the thread's state, such as recoverability, removal, or disposition, leaving a behavioral gap for a destructive 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause earns its place: the action, target, and usage precondition all appear in the first sentence.

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 one-parameter, optionally destructive tool, the description covers the main precondition but leaves the post-condition undefined—what happens after archiving and whether it is reversible. No output schema exists, so a sentence about expected outcome or state would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention agentId at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the bare schema property. The parameter is simple and self-descriptive, but with no schema description the description should have at least clarified that agentId identifies the idle worker thread to archive.

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 a specific action ('Archive') on a specific resource ('idle worker thread') and adds a scope restriction ('idle'), which separates it from sibling tools like agent_interrupt. It is concise and 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?

It says the tool applies to idle workers and explicitly warns that active turns must be interrupted first, effectively directing an agent to agent_interrupt when a thread is active. It does not name the alternative tool explicitly, but the guidance is actionable.

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