SupplySources_archiveSupplySource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the supply source becomes inactive. It does not mention whether the action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it is idempotent, or what the response contains. 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' is a vague and potentially confusing behavioral note.

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 short but poorly structured: 'Catalog entry' and 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' do not earn their place and obscure the core action. The actual purpose is buried at the end instead of being front-loaded.

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?

The description does not explain which supply source is archived given there are no parameters, nor does it provide enough detail for an agent to reliably invoke the operation. It lacks output expectations, side-effect depth, and any guidance about how the target resource is identified.

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 tool has zero declared parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 is appropriate, though the description could have clarified that no input is needed, especially since the schema allows additionalProperties.

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 phrase 'Archive a supply source, making it inactive' clearly identifies a specific verb and resource, and states the observable outcome. However, the opening fragments 'Catalog entry' and 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' add confusion and do not help distinguish this tool from sibling status-related tools like SupplySources_updateSupplySourceStatus.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as SupplySources_updateSupplySourceStatus or SupplySources_updateSupplySource. It provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or operational context beyond stating the action itself.

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