archive_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Archive a company by ID' without revealing whether the operation is reversible, what happens to related data, or if any permissions are required. This is a materially incomplete disclosure for a mutation action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, making it appropriately concise for the simplicity of the operation.

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?

Given that the tool mutates state and has no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the consequences of archiving (e.g., whether it hides the company, is reversible, or affects dependent resources). A single clause is insufficient for an agent to safely predict the outcome.

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 schema shows a single required 'id' of type number. The description adds 'by ID', confirming that the parameter identifies the target company. Though sparse, this minimal addition is sufficient for the simple parameter; however, it does not go beyond the obvious meaning already implied by 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 uses the specific verb 'Archive' with the resource 'company' and specifies the scope 'by ID'. This clearly differentiates from siblings like unarchive_company and delete_company, making the action unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that archiving is likely a reversible alternative to deletion, nor does it explain when unarchive_company should be used. The context is entirely absent.

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