calls_batch_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool archives/deletes multiple calls, indicating a destructive operation, but fails to mention critical details like permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, error handling for invalid IDs, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like behavioral implications, parameter details, error handling, or output expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter is for multiple call records but doesn't specify format (e.g., array of strings), constraints (e.g., max batch size), or semantics (e.g., what happens if some IDs fail). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural definition, resulting in a baseline score.

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 (delete)') and resource ('multiple call records'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'calls_archive', which likely archives single calls, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose batch vs. single operations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calls_archive' or 'calls_batch_delete'. The description implies batch processing but lacks explicit context about prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases with sibling tools.

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