archive_dead_targets

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

Discloses a key behavioral trait: the operation is reversible via restore_target(). It also explains the selection criterion (DNS scan returned empty records). Without annotations, the description carries the burden and does so reasonably, though it omits details about permissions, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the additional details (tenant-wide, no IDs, reversible) are packed efficiently without redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the action, the selection criteria, and the recovery path. Minor omissions like potential failure modes or permission requirements are acceptable for this simple automation, but could be added for completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the description explicitly clarifies that 'no target_ids needed', which is the only parameter-related information an agent needs. This meets the baseline for 0 params and adds clarifying 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 states a specific verb ('archive'), resource ('targets'), and the precise condition ('most recent DNS scan returned empty records'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like bulk_archive_targets by emphasizing 'tenant-wide sweep, no target_ids needed', making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool: a tenant-wide bulk operation for dead targets, explicitly noting that no target_ids are required. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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