archive_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('archive') and effects ('uneditable and unexecutable'), which implies a mutation operation. However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid query_id), or side effects (e.g., impact on related executions). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by explaining the action, parameter, and outcome. However, the 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant given the output schema, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It explains the action and parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral details like error handling or reversibility. With no annotations and an output schema, it should provide more context on usage and constraints to be fully helpful.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'query_id' by specifying it as 'The unique identifier of the query to archive.' This clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic type (integer). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description effectively compensates by providing essential semantic information, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., valid range).

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 the verb ('archive') and resource ('query'), and specifies the outcome ('making it uneditable and unexecutable'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_table' or 'update_query' by focusing on archival rather than deletion or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'make_query_private' or 'make_query_public', which also affect query accessibility.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing query), exclusions (e.g., cannot archive already archived queries), or comparisons to siblings like 'delete_table' (for removal) or 'make_query_private' (for access control). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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