archive_thought

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

The description discloses that the tool moves the file to a specific directory and logs the archive action with timestamp and created task IDs. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and adequately conveys the key behavioral traits, though it could be more explicit about side effects like file deletion.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and a side effect without redundancy.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: action, when to use, and logging behavior. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning recoverability or error cases, but it is sufficient for a straightforward file 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description adds marginal value. However, it ties the 'created_tasks' parameter to the logging action and reinforces the purpose of 'file' and 'notes', enhancing understanding beyond schema alone.

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 'Archives' and the resource 'processed thought file' with a specific destination path. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'archive_task' (which archives tasks) and 'process_thoughts' (which processes thoughts), making its unique purpose obvious.

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 explicitly says to use this tool after creating tasks from a thought file, providing clear context for its use. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand the appropriate scenario.

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