archive_channel

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

The description adds behavioral context by noting the channel is hidden and content is preserved, which goes beyond the raw annotations. Although destructiveHint is true, the description does not explicitly state whether the archive can be undone, but the presence of restore_channel in sibling tools mitigates this gap.

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 concise, using a single sentence with a helpful parenthetical. It avoids unnecessary detail while conveying the essential purpose and a key parameter source.

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 an output schema is present, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides enough context for when to use the tool, though it could mention how to obtain channel_id or the relationship between channel and workspace.

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?

Only workspace_id is described with a source for valid values; channel_id is left to inference from its name. The schema provides no descriptions, so the description covers only half of the parameters and lacks details on constraints or possible values.

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 the specific action (archive a channel) and its effect (hidden from members, content preserved), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also naturally distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_channel and restore_channel.

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 explains where to get workspace_id and implies the non-destructive nature of archiving by noting content is preserved. It does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives such as delete_channel, but the sibling names and the parenthetical make appropriate usage inferable.

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