bulk_archive_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is reversible and returns counts of succeeded/failed runs, but does not explain what archiving entails (e.g., hiding from listings), permission requirements, or error behavior for invalid IDs.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, limit, reversibility, and return type. No superfluous words; each sentence adds necessary information.

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 bulk archive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description effectively communicates function, limit, reversibility, and result structure. Minor gaps include lack of mention of prerequisites or behavior when some IDs are invalid, but the return counts partially address error handling.

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 already describes 'runIds' as 'The run ids to archive.' with constraints. The description adds the batch limit ('up to 500') which matches the schema's maxItems, but does not add new conceptual meaning. Given 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Archive'), the resource ('runs'), and the scope ('up to 500 runs at once'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'archive_run' by specifying batch size, and from 'unarchive_run' by noting reversibility.

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 indicates when to use this tool (batch archiving) and notes that archived runs can be unarchived individually, implying appropriate use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if permanent deletion is needed) or compare with single-archive or bulk-delete alternatives.

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