archive_content

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

The description discloses key behaviors: the content becomes hidden, the action is reversible, and it contrasts with the lack of hard delete. It also confirms the destructive nature through the annotation and explains how to revert. It does not mention potential side effects or permission requirements, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, with no unnecessary repetition. It uses two short sentences for the main explanation and a separate note for workspace_id, making it easy to read and understand. The structure is efficient and well-organized.

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 gives enough context for the agent to know when to use this tool (for reversible content removal) and how to get necessary parameters. It does not mention output expectations or permissions, but within the context of sibling tools, it is sufficiently complete for making an informed choice.

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 description explains workspace_id in detail, including how to get valid values from list_workspaces(). However, content_id is not described beyond the parameter name, leaving the agent to infer its meaning. This partial coverage is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 tool's function: to archive a content item, and explains that archiving hides it from listings and is fully reversible. It also distinguishes it from restoration with a direct reference to restore_content.

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 useful guidance by explaining the reversible nature and pointing to restore_content for undoing the action. It also tells users how to obtain the workspace_id via list_workspaces(). However, it does not explicitly compare with delete_content, which could confuse users given the claim that 'no hard delete' exists despite a delete_content sibling tool.

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