Archive Media

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (destructive, non-idempotent, non-read-only), and the description adds behavior that annotations cannot convey: asynchronous processing, that a background_job_status object is returned instead of a Media object, and which media types are ineligible for archiving. The auth/permission requirements and the note about sharing/notifications/charges add further operational context.

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 key behavior (batch archive, async, background job return, ineligible media) is front-loaded before the boilerplate permission block. The auth scope section is somewhat long and repetitive, but it is arguably necessary context and does not bury the primary purpose.

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 batch mutation with five params and no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: async return type, eligibility restrictions, auth requirements, and confirm. It could say more about how to poll the returned background job (e.g., via get_job_status), but overall it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents account, confirm, payload, hashed_ids, and payload_file. The description's only added parameter-level meaning is the 'up to 100' batch limit on hashed_ids, which is useful but minimal. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('archive ... medias') and states a batch ceiling of 100, so the agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from close siblings like delete_media, restore_media, or bulk_delete actions, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 concrete preconditions and exclusions: up to 100 medias per call, asynchronous execution, uncensorable media types (webinar medias and pre-Sept-2023 Soapbox imports), and a mandatory confirm=true. What's missing is an explicit statement of when to prefer archive over delete/restore alternatives, so usage context is implied rather than routed.

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