calls_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Archive (delete)', implying a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether archiving is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like removing 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, 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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral implications, return values, error conditions, or how it fits within the broader system (e.g., sibling tools). This leaves 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 description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but with only 1 parameter (callId) and 0% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The tool name and description imply 'callId' identifies the call to archive, which is sufficient given the minimal parameter count.

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') and resource ('a call record'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'calls_batch_archive' or clarify what 'archive' means versus 'delete' in parentheses.

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_batch_archive' or other archive tools for different resources. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical scenarios for archiving calls.

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