calls_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a destructive operation ('delete'), but doesn't specify whether archiving is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 - a single phrase that communicates the essential action and target. There's no wasted language, and the parenthetical '(delete)' efficiently clarifies the destructive nature. This is appropriately sized for a simple 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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'archive' means operationally, whether the action can be undone, what the response looks like, or error conditions. Given the complexity of a delete/archive operation and the complete lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete context.

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?

With only one parameter (callId) and 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool name. However, for a single-parameter tool where the parameter meaning is obvious from context (callId for a call archive operation), the baseline is appropriately high. The description could have specified format requirements but doesn't.

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 (delete)') and resource ('a call record'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'calls_batch_archive' or other archive tools for different resources, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calls_batch_archive' for multiple calls or 'calls_delete' if it existed. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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