archive_conversation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Archive a conversation' with no detail about effects (e.g., moving out of inbox), reversibility, or permissions. For a state-changing action, this is insufficient disclosure.

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, clear sentence without redundancy. It is front-loaded and concise. However, it is arguably under-specified and could include necessary context while remaining concise, so it does not earn a 5.

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 simplicity, the description is still too minimal. It lacks context about the operation's place among siblings, any caveats, or return behavior. The presence of an output schema is noted, but the description doesn't address it. Overall, it is just barely adequate for a basic tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not mention conversation_id or any other parameter. The parameter names in the schema are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 action: 'Archive a conversation.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making its purpose obvious. However, it does not distinguish this operation from sibling tools like trash_conversation or ignore_conversation, which limits its clarity for tool selection.

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 compared to alternatives. There is no mention of archiving vs. trashing, ignoring, or other conversation state changes. This leaves the agent without decision-support for tool selection.

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