products_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 action is a 'Move' to 'recycling bin' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it triggers notifications, or what happens to associated data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loads the essential 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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like return values, error conditions, side effects, or how this differs from deletion. The context signals show minimal parameter documentation, and the description doesn't adequately fill these gaps.

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 mentions 'ID' which corresponds to the 'productId' parameter in the schema, adding minimal semantic context. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining the ID format, validation rules, or examples. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is appropriately set at 3.

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 ('Move') and target ('Object identified by ID to the recycling bin'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'products_batch_archive' or other *_archive tools, which likely perform similar operations on different resource types.

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 'products_batch_archive' for multiple products or 'products_update' for modification instead of archiving. It lacks any context about prerequisites, permissions, or system-specific constraints.

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