archive_chats

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation-plus-safety profile is partly covered structurally. The phrase "Fully reversible" genuinely reinforces that archiving preserves data, adding value beyond the annotations, but nothing is said about whether archived chats remain searchable, whether message history is affected, or any permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the reversal noted immediately after. No filler, though the terse phrasing leaves room that could have been used for the identifier format.

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 output schema and a required, undocumented array parameter, the description leaves the agent guessing about input format and result shape. The safety story is adequate given annotations, but the callable contract is under-specified for a two-parameter mutation 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only gestures at the unarchive flag via "(or back)" without naming it. The required `chats` array is undocumented — no indication whether elements are chat IDs, JIDs, or display names, which is critical for a required identifier list.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Move chats to the Archive folder") with the inverse mode noted parenthetically, which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from destructive siblings like delete_messages, clear_chat_history, and leave_or_delete_chats. It doesn't name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

"Fully reversible" implies this is the safe alternative to deletion, but the description never says when to archive versus when to use leave_or_delete_chats or clear_chat_history. Usage is implied through the reversibility claim rather than spelled out with conditions or exclusions.

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