aircall_archive_call

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by specifying that archiving hides the call rather than deleting it, which is a meaningful behavioral trait not fully captured by the boolean annotations. It also implicitly suggests reversibility via the existence of unarchive_call.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and a concise consequence. There is zero wasted text; every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple single-parameter action tool with annotations and a complete schema, the description covers the essential context: what happens and the effect. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools for related operations.

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 coverage is 100%; the sole parameter call_id is documented as 'The call ID to archive.' The description adds no further context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies without bonus or penalty.

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 uses a specific verb ('Archive') with a clear resource ('a call'), and immediately clarifies the effect by stating archived calls are hidden from the main call list. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like unarchive_call and delete_recording by defining its exact behavior.

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?

Usage is implied through the effect ('hidden from the main call list') — an agent can infer this is for removing visibility without deletion. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as unarchive_call or delete_recording, nor any prerequisites.

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