chats_archive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only transport plumbing (REST path, gRPC method, socket event) and says nothing about what archiving actually does to the chat, whether it is reversible, or whether it affects messages/notifications.

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?

A single front-loaded line with the verb+resource first, which is good structure. The parenthetical transport metadata is low-value for an agent that just invokes the tool, but it costs little.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations describing side effects, the definition should state reversibility, scope of effect, and any required state. None of that is present, leaving the agent with only a name and two opaque IDs.

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% and the description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the gap. The parameter names chatId and channelId with example values in the schema make the intent inferable, but the definition adds zero meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Archive a chat'), which is unambiguous and clearly the inverse of the sibling chats_unarchive. It does not explicitly name the sibling or scope the operation, so it stops short of the 5-level differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the complementary chats_unarchive or the alternative of muting/pinning. The agent must infer entirely from the tool name that this is the archival action.

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