archive_product

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

The description adds behavior beyond the annotations by explaining the soft-delete semantics (disappears from store, stays in database) and the requirement for user confirmation. This is valuable context not available in the destructiveHint annotation, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The soft-delete explanation and confirmation instruction are essential and elegantly packed into two sentences.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations indicating destructiveness and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it does, the soft-delete behavior, and the confirmation requirement. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has one parameter (productId) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'name the product, not just the id' but that refers to user communication, not to the parameter's format, source, or validation. It fails to compensate for the low parameter coverage.

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/soft-delete) and resource (product), and distinguishes it from a hard delete by explaining the product disappears from the store but stays in the database. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_coupon or delete_vendor.

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 explicit usage guidance: confirm with the user before calling and name the product rather than just the ID. While it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, the context is clear enough for an agent to know when and how to invoke the tool.

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