calls_batch_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('Archive (delete)') without detailing behavioral aspects. It doesn't specify if the deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to associated data. The parenthetical '(delete)' adds some clarity but is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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 core action and resource. There's no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks critical details about permissions, consequences, error handling, and response format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to safely invoke this tool.

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 mention the 'callIds' parameter at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, it adds no semantic value beyond what the bare schema provides. However, since there's only one parameter and its purpose is somewhat inferable from the tool name, the baseline is 3 as it doesn't actively mislead but fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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') with the scope 'in a single request'. It distinguishes from the singular 'calls_archive' sibling by specifying batch operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other batch operations like 'calls_batch_read' or 'calls_batch_update'.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or compare it to the singular 'calls_archive' or other batch operations like 'calls_batch_read', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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