Archive or unarchive a chat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the mutation and safety profile. The description adds the useful nuance that archiving happens 'on the linked devices' and that unarchiving is achieved with `archived: false`, but it does not describe other behavioral traits such as sync effects, visibility changes, or response behavior.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and immediately covers the secondary mode, making it easy to parse and act on.

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 simple toggle tool with a complete parameter schema and idempotent annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It explains both archive and unarchive modes and references the account context via the schema. The lack of an output schema and any mention of return values is a minor gap, not a critical one.

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 input schema fully describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by showing how the `archived` boolean toggles between archive and unarchive, which reinforces the schema's 'Default true' note but does not provide substantial new meaning.

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 operation: archive a chat, and explicitly includes the unarchive behavior via `archived: false`. It names the specific resource ('a chat') and the device scope ('on the linked devices'), but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling chat-state tools like pin_chat or mute_chat.

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 explains how to unarchive by setting `archived: false`, but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as pin_chat, mute_chat, or mark_chat_read. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage inference entirely to the agent.

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