Archive Conversation

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), the description discloses a non-obvious side effect — opening the thread marks it read — plus the idempotency mechanism, post-action verification by reloading the thread, reversibility, and the fact that a new message returns the thread to the inbox. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before mutating state.

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 action and target are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by mechanics, idempotency, verification, and reversibility in that order. There is no filler; every sentence contributes operational information.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the preconditions (thread ID), the side effect (marked read), the outcome (already_archived), and reversibility. Return-value details are unnecessary because an output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100% and the single thread_id parameter is already documented with its source tools (get_inbox, search_conversations, get_conversation). The description adds only 'by thread ID', which restates the schema rather than extending it — baseline 3 for a fully documented single parameter.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource — 'Archive one LinkedIn messaging thread, InMail included, by thread ID' — and scopes it to a single thread. An agent can distinguish it from get_inbox, get_conversation, and search_conversations without consulting the schema.

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?

It gives clear operational context: repeated calls on already-archived threads click nothing and return already_archived. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead when the goal is reading (get_conversation) or replying (reply_to_conversation), so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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