ClockNext: archive credit

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the soft-archive behavior: keeps credit/history, existing plans keep working, new plans cannot add it, it drops from active lists, and is reversible. Even though destructiveHint=true exists, the description clarifies the operation is non-destructive and reversible, providing context annotations alone could not convey.

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 fairly long but every sentence earns its place: action, effects, reversibility, usage scope, and explicit non-goals. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slight verbosity could be trimmed, but the structure is logical and dense with useful information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers behavior, side effects, reversibility, and exclusions. It also cross-references related tools (update_plan, update_credit) for follow-up actions, making the tool context complete enough for an agent to use safely.

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 description already states the parameter id is 'The credit id to deactivate (soft-archive — reversible, not a delete).' The description repeats this but adds no new literal meaning beyond emphasizing reversibility and non-deletion. With 100% schema coverage, the prose adds minimal additional parameter-level value.

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 immediately identifies the tool as deactivating a credit TYPE (sets isActive→false), clearly distinguishing it from a delete and from other archive tools (e.g., archive_plan, archive_customer). It names the exact verb and resource, and explicitly states what it does not do, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

Provides explicit use context: 'Use ONLY to retire a credit you no longer sell.' It also lists exclusions and alternatives: update_plan to stop offering on plans, update_credit to reactivate, and clarifies it is unrelated to archiving customers/ending purchases/clearing balances. This is exemplary guidance for when and when not to use.

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