products_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the action is 'Move... to the recycling bin' which implies a destructive operation that changes state, but doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it triggers notifications, or what happens to associated data. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

Single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core action and doesn't include any unnecessary information. It's appropriately sized for a simple archival 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after archival, whether the action is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. The tool name suggests it archives products specifically, but the description says 'Object' generically, creating ambiguity. More context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'ID' which maps to the single 'productId' parameter, giving basic semantic meaning. However, it doesn't specify the ID format, whether it's a numeric ID, UUID, or something else, nor does it explain where to find this ID. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter name itself.

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 ('Move') and target ('Object identified by ID'), specifying it goes 'to the recycling bin'. It distinguishes from deletion tools by indicating archival rather than permanent removal. However, it's slightly vague about what type of 'Object' it refers to (product vs. other entities).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like permanent deletion tools or batch operations. The description implies it's for moving individual products to recycling, but doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or when to choose batch_archive instead. Sibling tools include products_batch_archive, but no comparison is provided.

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