archive_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it usefully discloses that new job submissions are disabled. However, it does not disclose whether the action is reversible or what happens to already-submitted/running jobs, which is significant for a lifecycle-changing mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action and its key effect with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with a complete schema, selection and invocation are adequately supported. However, with no output schema and no stated reversibility or side effects, the description leaves some context about post-archive behavior undefined.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single required instance_id, so the description does not need to restate it. The description adds no parameter-specific nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Archive') with a clear resource ('sandbox instance') and adds the functional consequence (disabling new job submissions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_instance, update_instance, and submit_job.

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 implies the use case through 'disabling new job submissions,' but it does not explicitly state when to prefer archiving over update_instance or how archived instances relate to list_archived_instances. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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