archive_old_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether source rows are deleted after archiving, whether the operation is transactional or resumable, how batchSize affects execution, or what permissions are needed. For a data-moving mutation across 7 parameters this is a significant disclosure gap.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it is undersized for a 7-parameter mutation tool, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and seven parameters, the description should explain at least what hapens to the source data and how batching behaves. Instead it offers one generic clause, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool safely or correctly.

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 100%, so all seven parameters (including batchSize, condition, and archiveSchemaName) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Arquiva' / archives) and resource ('dados antigos' / old data) plus the destination ('schema de arquivo'), so the operation is identifiable. However, it gives no differentiation from closely related siblings such as apply_retention_policy, compress_table, or create_partition, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_retention_policy or compress_table, and no preconditions (permissions, connection selection, retention rules) are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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