archive_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and usefully discloses that archived memories are excluded from recall by default. It does not clarify permissions, whether archived memories remain retrievable by id or in list_memories, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with zero wasted words. The core operation is front-loaded in the first sentence and the downstream recall behavior follows immediately.

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 simple toggle tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation and the key recall-side effect. It stops short of explaining the relationship to delete_memory and the full lifecycle of archived memories, but it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the unarchive boolean and scope disambiguation. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the general archive/unarchive concept, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: archive or unarchive a memory. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling delete_memory tool, which is the nearest alternative operation.

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 implies usage by noting that archived memories are excluded from recall by default, suggesting you archive instead of deleting when you want to hide but retain a memory. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus delete_memory, update_memory, or set_memory_priority, and it offers no exclusions.

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