archive_call

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description earns its place by explaining what archiving actually does to the data (hidden from history and analytics, not deleted) and naming the required scope. It does not address whether repeat calls are safe, which matters given idempotentHint=false, but nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences: the action and its effect come first, the precondition second. Zero filler and no restating of the tool name.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important ground: the semantic effect, reversibility (not deleted), and the auth scope. The only real gap is identifying the `id` parameter, which the schema leaves bare.

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% for the single required `id` parameter, so the description must carry the load and it does not — it never says whether `id` is a call ID, nor what form it takes. Only the scope hint indirectly implies this is a write on an existing call.

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 and resource ('Archive a call') and immediately defines the effect ('hidden from history and analytics, not deleted'), which rules out confusion with a hard delete. It does not name the obvious inverse sibling `unarchive_call`, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 `calls:write` scope requirement gives a real precondition for use, which is more than most definitions offer. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to archive versus when to use `unarchive_call` or other call-mutating siblings, leaving the choice to inference.

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