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 the core action (archive) and the retention of a hot window, but does not disclose side effects such as whether archiving deletes data, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or the impact on the journal. This is insufficient for a maintenance operation.

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. Every word contributes to conveying the core action and constraint, making it concise and easy to parse.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description still lacks important context such as when to use the tool, prerequisites, and operational behavior. For a maintenance operation that may have side effects, this level of detail is insufficient. The description is too sparse to fully inform an agent.

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 implicitly explains 'hot_days' via 'hot window', but 'repository' is never mentioned. The description adds some meaning to one parameter but leaves the other undocumented, which is inadequate for a 2-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb 'Archive' with a clear resource ('complete UTC claim-event days') and states the retention behavior ('retaining the configured hot window'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like claim_report, claim_status, claim_acquire, etc., which perform different actions.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are mentioned. While the purpose is clear, there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' information.

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