products_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. 'Archive' implies a destructive/mutative operation, but the description doesn't clarify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to archived products. It lacks critical details about the mutation's nature and consequences.

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 at just 6 words, front-loading the core action and resource. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient to parse while still conveying the essential purpose.

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 operation with 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical aspects like what 'archive' means operationally, error handling, batch limitations, or expected outcomes. The context demands more comprehensive guidance.

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 'by ID' which hints at the 'productIds' parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain what format IDs should be in, if there are constraints on batch size, or what happens if some IDs are invalid. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.

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') and resource ('a batch of products by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from individual archive operations by specifying 'batch' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch operations like 'products_batch_update' or 'products_batch_create' among siblings.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to choose batch archive over individual 'products_archive', nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for use. Sibling tools include both individual and batch operations, but no comparison is offered.

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