products_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 action ('Archive') but doesn't explain what archiving entails (e.g., whether it's reversible, if data is preserved, permission requirements, or rate limits). For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information (archive + batch + products + ID).

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 batch operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical context like what archiving means operationally, error handling for invalid IDs, whether the operation is atomic, or what happens to archived products. The completeness is poor given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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 'by ID' which implies the 'productIds' parameter contains identifiers, adding some context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't specify ID format, validation rules, or batch size limits, leaving important semantic details uncovered.

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') and target ('a batch of products by ID'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'products_archive' tool, which appears to archive individual products rather than batches.

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 'products_archive' or other batch operations. The description lacks context about prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate use cases for batch archiving versus individual operations.

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