archive collection

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

With annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the collection 'disappears from active views' yet 'can be restored', explaining the material effect of the destructive action. It does not discuss additional side effects but sufficiently clarifies the core behavior beyond the annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and containing no filler. Every word earns its place, making it an ideal length for a simple tool.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations, the description is quite complete: it states the action, the immediate effect (disappears from active views), and the reversibility (can be restored). It does not address return values, errors, or side effects on related items, but these are not critical for such a simple operation.

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 has one required parameter, collection_id, with schema description coverage at 0%. The description does not mention this parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no explicit semantic meaning, leaving a gap.

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 tool archives a Collection, with a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('Collection'). It also distinguishes itself from deletion by noting 'can be restored', and from the many sibling archive tools by specifying 'this Collection'.

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 when to use the tool ('Archive this Collection') and implies reversibility, but it does not explicitly differentiate from restore/delete alternatives or provide usage context like 'use this to hide from active views instead of permanently deleting'. No explicit when-not guidance is given.

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