calls_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. It indicates a destructive action ('Archive (delete)') but doesn't specify if archiving is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. This leaves significant gaps 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?

The description is extremely concise—a single phrase that directly states the action and target. There's no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., success/failure response, error handling), behavioral nuances (e.g., soft vs. hard delete), or integration with sibling tools, leaving the agent with critical gaps in understanding.

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 description doesn't explicitly mention the 'callId' parameter, but with only one required parameter and 0% schema description coverage, it's clear from context that 'a call record' refers to the callId. Since there are 0 parameters with descriptions in the schema, the baseline is 4, as the description adequately implies the single parameter's purpose without redundancy.

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 (delete)') and resource ('a call record'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'calls_batch_archive' or 'calls_delete' (if present), which would require explicit comparison for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calls_batch_archive' for multiple calls or 'calls_delete' if it exists. It also lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the call must be in a specific state before archiving.

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