archive container

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the container 'can be restored' and that archiving happens 'under existing propagation and Inbox rules', which provides some behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, the concept of propagation is vague and not elaborated, so it offers limited transparency.

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. Each sentence provides essential information: what the tool does and that it is reversible. There is no fluff or repetition, making it appropriately concise.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations, the description covers the core action and reversibility but omits details about what 'archive' means for the container's contents, how propagation affects related items, and the effect on Inbox. It is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity, especially given the lack of output schema.

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 one parameter, container_id, with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter or explain how to obtain it. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without guidance on the required input.

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 clear action ('Archive a Container') and resource, which is specific that it applies to containers. It does not explicitly contrast with other archive operations (e.g., archive_task, archive_project), but the resource is unambiguous enough to distinguish from siblings.

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 (archiving a container) and notes that it is reversible, hinting it is not a permanent deletion. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like delete_container or restore_container, nor does it explain the 'propagation and Inbox rules' that govern the operation.

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