archive_photos

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

The description richly discloses behavioral traits: it is not permanent deletion, it moves items to archive, and the user's perception matters ('the user reads this as deleting their photos'). It also explains the platform limitation (macOS) and that the user must manually empty the album. This goes far beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true) by clarifying the exact scope of destructiveness and the irreversible-like nature.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the key warning ('closest thing to deleting'), followed by how it works, then parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place. Slight verbosity in the line breaks but overall compact. Minor deduction for the blank lines and the informal 'the user reads this as...' phrasing, but it is still tight.

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 destructive tool with two parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the critical context: what it does, how it differs from deletion, when to set confirm, and the operational consequence (user manually empties). The output schema handles return values. This is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 schema covers 0% of parameter semantics, so the description must compensate. The description explains both parameters: 'refs' as photo UUIDs or exact filenames, and 'confirm' with a clear usage rule. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types. It doesn't specify exact file name formats or UUID format, but enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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 moves photos into an archive album, removing them from the main library view, and explicitly frames it as 'the closest thing to deleting that macOS allows'. This is a specific verb+resource with a clear effect, and it distinguishes itself from direct deletion and implies why it exists (macOS restriction).

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 gives clear usage guidance: it states that no app can permanently delete photos, so the user must empty the archive album by hand. It also provides explicit instructions for the 'confirm' parameter: set true only when the user has actually asked for these specific items to go. This tells the agent both when and when not to use the tool, and distinguishes it from other photo tools by its destructive/archive nature.

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