products_batch_archive

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 correctly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Archive (delete)'), but fails to mention critical behavioral aspects like whether archiving is reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, what happens to associated data, or what the response format looks like. For a destructive batch operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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 batch operation with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical context like error handling, batch size limits, confirmation requirements, or what 'archive' specifically means in this system (soft delete vs permanent removal). The description should provide more guidance given the high-stakes nature of batch deletion.

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 provides some context for the 'productIds' parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, it doesn't fully compensate. It doesn't specify ID format, maximum batch size, or what happens if some IDs are invalid. The baseline would be lower given the coverage gap, but the 'by ID' hint provides minimal value.

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 ('a batch of products by ID'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'products_archive' (single product archive) or 'products_batch_update' (batch update), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. There are multiple sibling batch tools (products_batch_create, products_batch_read, products_batch_update) and single-operation tools (products_archive), but the description offers no context about choosing between them or any prerequisites for using this destructive operation.

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