Archive an entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It clearly describes the core action (moving an entry and its subtree to an archive file) and the intent (keeping a record). However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as whether the operation is reversible, whether permissions are required, or what happens to the original file beyond being removed. These details are missing, so the score is limited to 3.

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 concise, two sentences, with the primary action and destination front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundancy. Every sentence contributes value, making it well-structured and efficient.

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 tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and a clear purpose, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the operation and its use case. However, it omits details such as whether the archive file is automatically created if missing, or what the result of the operation is (e.g., no return value). Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 describes the single parameter 'id' as 'The entry's id.' This provides 100% schema description coverage. The description itself adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb (move), a precise resource (an entry and its subtree), and the destination (a companion archive file). It also conveys the intent (clean up completed or stale items while keeping a record). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like org_get_entry (read), org_capture (add), or org_update_state (modify state) – archiving is a distinct operation.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'clean up completed or stale items while keeping a record.' This gives a clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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