Archive a routing strategy. The strategy must not have associated notification templates; unlink all templates before archiving.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| routing_strategy_id | Yes | The routing strategy ID to archive |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds that archiving is gated on absence of notification templates and tells the caller to unlink first, which is meaningful context beyond annotations. It doesn't discuss reversibility or failure cases, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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 sentences, action first, precondition second, and no filler. The clause about unlinking templates is essential and earns its place.
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 archive operation with annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description covers the action and the central precondition. It doesn't identify the tool used to unlink templates or describe the response, but these are minor for this simple operation.
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 covers routing_strategy_id at 100%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra detail about ID format, source, or how to obtain it, so the 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 precise verb and object: 'Archive a routing strategy.' The resource is specific and uniquely identifies this operation among sibling archive_* tools, distinguishing it from archive_notification, archive_journey, and similar.
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?
Gives a clear prerequisite: the strategy must not have associated notification templates and instructs to unlink templates before archiving. It doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the precondition provides usable call-condition guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly organized as distinct resource/action pairs, but several clusters are easy to confuse: list subscription tools (add_subscribers_to_list vs bulk_subscribe_to_list vs subscribe_user_to_list), message vs message-content vs message-history retrieval, and the many journey/journey-template list/get tools. Detailed descriptions rescue most selections, but the sheer number of near-identical verb/resource names creates real misselection risk.
Almost all tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, replace_, send_, publish_, archive_). Minor deviations keep it from a perfect score: courier_installation_guide is noun-first, and add_bulk_users sits awkwardly next to the bulk_add_* family, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
144 tools is an extreme working-set size for an agent to hold and choose from, far beyond the reasonable 3–15 range. Even for a broad platform like Courier, this should be split into focused sub-servers (templates, journeys, users, lists, preferences, etc.) to remain usable.
The surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering sending, templates, journeys, automations, users, tenants, lists, preferences, providers, routing, brands, audiences, translations, digests, bulk jobs, and audit events. Notable gaps exist—automation template CRUD and digest schedule management are missing—but most workflows can still be completed with workarounds.
