bulk_archive_targets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that archiving stops scanning, is fully reversible via restore_target(), and is not destructive. This conveys the key side effect and persistence semantics, though it doesn't mention potential edge cases or additional state changes.

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 purpose (archive targets), immediately clarifies the effect (stops scanning), and adds crucial reversibility and non-destructiveness info. No wasted words.

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 covers the essential purpose and non-destructive nature, but given there is no output schema or annotations, it does not mention return values, success/failure indicators, or any batch limitations. For a simple bulk operation, the core is there, but an agent might lack information on expected outcomes or error handling.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. While the name 'bulk_archive_targets' and the phrase 'Archive targets' imply the parameter is the list of target IDs, the description does not explicitly explain target_ids or its format. The meaning is inferable, but it lacks direct parameter documentation, so it only partially compensates.

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 a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('targets'), with an explicit effect: stops them from being scanned. It also distinguishes itself from destructive operations by noting it's reversible and non-destructive, which differentiates it from tools like bulk_delete_targets.

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 implies usage context (temporarily stop scanning, reversible later) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_blocklist_targets or bulk_delete_targets. It mentions restore_target as the reverse operation but gives no explicit exclusions or conditions, leaving the choice somewhat inferential.

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