context_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses side effects ('otherwise invocation saves AND uploads'), the dry_run safety path, local queuing of failed uploads, namespace isolation, and that it 'never change[s] relay project keys.' It even lists returned fields so the agent knows what to expect.

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 dense but well-organized: action first, then when-to-use, then side effects, then return fields. Most sentences earn their place. The final sentence 'Never call a queued archive uploaded' is awkward and somewhat cryptic, which prevents a top score.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it explains the workflow, retry behavior, namespacing, and return fields. The main gaps are the undocumented host and session_id parameters and the exact meaning of the queued-upload warning, but overall the agent can invoke it 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 coverage is 60%, and the description adds useful meaning for cwd ('Always pass the conversation directory as cwd') and dry_run ('previews without side effects'). However, host and session_id receive no additional explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving their semantics partly to inference.

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: 'Save and upload a semantically compressed conversation as <directory-name>.md.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by describing its namespace behavior, lossless splitting, and upload-to-memory-API purpose, which sets it apart from context_save and memory_save.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'after /kireo:compact has summarized the requested conversation rounds, and the user has asked to upload them.' It also gives retry guidance ('Run compact again to retry'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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