he_archive_conversation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Archive a conversation' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the action is reversible, what changes occur (e.g., visibility), or any side effects. The confirmation note is about user interaction, not tool behavior.

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 consists of two short sentences with no extraneous information. The critical instruction about user confirmation is prominently placed.

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 archive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete. However, it lacks details about behavioral effects (e.g., whether the conversation is hidden or moved) and prerequisites. The existence of 'unarchive_conversation' implies reversibility, but this is not stated.

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 100% with a single parameter 'conversationId' described as 'Conversation ID'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 'Archive a conversation' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action and object. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'unarchive_conversation' and 'batch_archive'.

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 instruction 'IMPORTANT: ask user confirmation' provides a key usage guideline, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_archive' or 'unarchive_conversation'. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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