claim_maintain_journal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that old days are archived and the hot window is retained, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., destructive behavior, reversibility), what 'complete' means, or any operational constraints. This is insufficient for a mutating maintenance tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words, which is efficient. However, it is under-sized for the tool's complexity, omitting parameter details and usage context, making it only minimally adequate.

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?

The output schema may cover return values, but the description does not explain how the repository and hot_days parameters interact, what 'complete' days are, or what 'archive' entails. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention the required 'repository' parameter or the 'hot_days' parameter by name. 'Configured hot window' vaguely alludes to hot_days, but the mapping is not explicit, and the repository context is entirely absent.

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 uses the verb 'Archive' with a clear resource ('complete UTC claim-event days') and a scope ('retaining the configured hot window'). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishable from the claim_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling claim_* tools. The phrase 'while retaining the configured hot window' hints at a maintenance task, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned.

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