Archive agent

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them by naming exactly what is destroyed versus retained (event history, profile/config, BYO machines) and by describing repeat-call behavior. The 'no-op on already-archived' claim is a slight nuance against idempotentHint=false, but it reads as a benign clarification rather than a safety-profile contradiction.

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 verb and action are front-loaded, and the long first sentence is a necessary enumeration of destructive effects rather than filler. The three follow-up sentences each carry distinct, load-bearing information (retention, listing behavior, idempotent repeat).

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?

With no output schema and only conservative annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it covers what is removed, what survives, and what a repeat call returns. It stops short of stating authorization requirements or whether archiving can be reversed, which matters for a destructive, listing-removing operation.

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 three parameters carry only names and regex patterns. Those names (agentID, orgID, projectID) and ID prefixes are largely self-explanatory and the description notes the agent is 'readable by id', but it adds no format, scope, or cross-project semantics for the parameters.

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 ('Archives the agent') and then enumerates the exact runtime, input, wakeup, binding, pool, and cron cleanup it performs. This differentiates it cleanly from the sibling agents_cancel, which stops a runtime but does not remove the agent from listings.

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 conveys the intent of archiving (history stays readable by id, agent leaves listings), which implies when the tool is appropriate, but it never explicitly contrasts it with agents_cancel, agents_update, or any restore path. No prerequisites, permissions, or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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