crm_batch_archive_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool archives (deletes) multiple objects, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks critical details: whether archiving is permanent or reversible, required permissions, rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or confirmation prompts. The parenthetical '(delete)' suggests permanence but isn't explicit about consequences.

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 ('Archive (delete) multiple CRM objects') and adds operational context ('in a single request'). There is zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration—every word serves a purpose. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward name and two parameters.

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 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: parameter semantics, behavioral traits (permanence, permissions, errors), output expectations, and differentiation from siblings. The conciseness comes at the cost of adequacy, leaving significant gaps for safe and correct usage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'objectType' represents (the enum values like 'companies', 'contacts'), what 'objectIds' should contain (e.g., CRM IDs), format requirements, or constraints (e.g., maximum batch size). The description's mention of 'CRM objects' loosely relates to 'objectType' but provides no actionable details.

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 CRM objects') with the operational context ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from single-object operations like 'crm_archive_object' by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'batch' nature. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch archive tools for different resource types (e.g., 'crm_batch_archive_associations').

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. It doesn't mention when batch archiving is preferable to individual archiving ('crm_archive_object'), nor does it clarify the relationship with sibling tools like 'crm_batch_archive_associations' or domain-specific batch archives (e.g., 'calls_batch_archive'). No prerequisites, limitations, or performance considerations are stated.

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