archive_session

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description still adds real value by specifying the observable consequence (leaves the active list) and the recovery path via unarchive_session. It omits permission/authorization requirements and whether archived sessions still count toward quotas or listing limits.

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?

Two compact clauses front-load the action and its effect before mentioning reversibility. The trailing 'Mesma regra do console' is a vague cross-reference that gives little actionable information, a small amount of waste in an otherwise tight description.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the visibility change, and how to undo it. Only secondary details such as authorization, retention, or whether the archive is tenant-wide are missing.

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% and the single session_id parameter is documented there as text or UUID form, so the description need not repeat it. The description adds no extra meaning about accepted identifier formats or validation. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Arquiva uma conversa') and immediately defines the observable effect ('sai da lista ativa'), which distinguishes it from deletion-style siblings. It also names the complementary sibling unarchive_session, so an agent can separate the two without opening a 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?

Names the reverse operation explicitly ('reversível com unarchive_session'), which implicitly tells the agent to prefer this over irreversible cleanup paths. It stops short of a when-not clause (e.g., versus clear_session or delete_agent), so usage is clear but not exhaustive.

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