engagement_details_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates this is a destructive operation ('Archive (delete)'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether archival is permanent/reversible, permission requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise - a single phrase that communicates the core action and target. Every word earns its place with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the essential information, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'archive' means operationally (soft delete vs. permanent), doesn't describe the return value or error responses, and provides no guidance on usage context. Given the complexity of a deletion operation and the rich ecosystem of sibling tools, this leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. However, there's only one parameter ('engagementId'), and its purpose is reasonably inferable from context. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what's obvious from the parameter name, but with minimal parameters, the baseline is appropriate.

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 ('an engagement'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'engagement_details_get' or 'engagement_details_update' by specifying the destructive archival operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other archive tools (e.g., 'calls_archive', 'emails_archive') which have similar patterns.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing engagement), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or when to choose batch operations (like 'crm_batch_archive_objects') instead. With many sibling tools available, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.

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