Archive To History

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the mutating move, that associated reports are relocated together, that the destination is an immutable date-sharded record, and how `done_date` affects the shard. It does not mention potential error cases or reversibility, but 'immutable' communicates lasting effect.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action and destination appear first, followed by useful side-effect and date-shard details, and then the prerequisite call. Every sentence contributes essential operational information without filler.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, destination path, side effects, and date-shard behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need not be documented. It could optionally mention what happens if the task is not already archived, or how it relates to bulk history archiving, but the core operational context is complete.

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 100%, and both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does clarify that `done_date` overrides the UTC done-date default, but this largely echoes the schema text; it does not add substantially new meaning for `task_id`.

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 verb ('Move') with an explicit source (`_lifecycle/archive/`) and destination (`history/YYYY-MM-DD/<task-stem>/`), and clarifies that the task and its reports move together. This clearly distinguishes it from `archive_task`, which is explicitly mentioned as the prerequisite step, and from the bulk sibling `bulk_archive_to_history`.

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 clear context: the task must already be closed and in `_lifecycle/archive/`, and it instructs the agent to call `archive_task` first. It does not explicitly contrast with `bulk_archive_to_history` or state when not to use the tool, so it stops 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.