archive_category

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the agent already knows this is a destructive operation. However, the description adds no details about side effects, reversibility (e.g., whether restore_category can undo it), or permissions required, missing an opportunity to enrich the behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence plus a parameter hint with no fluff. It leads with the action, so it is front-loaded and easy to parse, though the brevity sacrifices essential details.

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?

The description covers only one of three parameters and omits any context about the operation's outcome, side effects, or relationship to sibling tools (e.g., restore_category, delete_category). While the workspace_id hint is useful, the overall picture is incomplete for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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 lists three parameters (channel_id, category_id, workspace_id), but the description only explains workspace_id, leaving channel_id and category_id completely undocumented. With schema description coverage at 0%, the lack of parameter explanations is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 action ('Archive') and the resource ('a category inside a channel'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like delete_category or restore_category. However, it doesn't elaborate on the meaning of archiving in this context, so it's clear but not fully descriptive.

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 provides a single hint for workspace_id (referencing list_workspaces()) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, how to obtain channel_id or category_id, or any prerequisites or consequences. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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