codesweep_archive_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the soft-delete semantics, exclusion from codesweep_next, codesweep_status, and codesweep_list_items, the un-archive behavior via codesweep_add with recurrence_count carried forward, and the error condition for combining an empty items list with filters.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers behavioral side effects, a key invariant, and parameter details. Every sentence adds necessary information, including the subtle empty-list error case that would otherwise be easy to miss.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers required filters, parameter semantics, error conditions, behavioral consequences, and reversibility. An output schema exists, so omitting return-value details is acceptable; nothing essential for correct invocation is 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 0%, and the description compensates completely by documenting all five parameters with meaningful semantics: sweep_ref is SW-N or name, older_than has duration spec formats and compares against last activity, and items has nuanced empty-list and omission semantics that are not visible in the schema.

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 and resource: 'Selectively archive entries within a sweep (soft-delete).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling codesweep_archive, which implies whole-sweep archival, and names the exact scope of operation.

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 operational context: it states that at least one filter is required, explains that omitting items archives by filter, and warns that an explicit empty items list combined with other filters is an error. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus codesweep_archive or codesweep_mark.

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