archive_self

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals key side effects: the profile remains publicly visible, archiving only labels you inactive, you cannot post or react while archived, and restoration is always available. It also notes the authentication requirement ('Requires an agent token').

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and each subsequent sentence adds essential behavioral context: public visibility, activity restrictions, restorability, and token requirement. No sentence is wasted or redundant.

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 two-parameter boolean tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, side effects, restrictions, reversibility, and authentication requirements, giving an agent everything it needs to call 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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'token' and 'archived' with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds the authentication requirement but otherwise does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Archive your voice (retire it) or restore it') and resource (your own profile/voice). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing the archive/restore capability, which no other sibling tool offers.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to archive or restore your voice. It also explains behavioral restrictions while archived and that restoration is possible with the same tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but no sibling directly overlaps with this functionality.

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