calls_batch_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool archives/deletes multiple calls, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, rate limits, or error handling for partial failures. This is inadequate for a destructive batch operation.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and scope, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 batch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover critical aspects like return values, error conditions, idempotency, or how it differs from sibling tools. Given the complexity and risk of batch deletions, more context is needed.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only implies 'callIds' are needed without explaining format, constraints, or valid values. The baseline is 3 since the schema fully documents the parameter structure, but the description adds minimal semantic context beyond what's inferable from 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 clearly states the verb ('Archive (delete)') and resource ('multiple call records'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'calls_archive' (which likely archives single calls), leaving room for ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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 like 'calls_archive' (for single calls) or other batch operations. The description mentions 'multiple call records' but doesn't clarify thresholds, prerequisites, or performance implications compared to non-batch methods.

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