archive_agent_marketplace_action

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: idempotency is explicitly mentioned, and the scope of side effects is clearly stated (does not modify contract, erase history, or uninstall installations). It also notes the authoritative RBAC context. Even without annotations, this provides a transparent view of the tool's semantics and safety profile.

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 concise and well-structured. It delivers the core purpose in the first sentence and then expands on scope and exclusions in the second, without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence adds value and the structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 provides sufficient context for an archive action: it explains the primary effect (removing from discovery/publication), exclusions (what it does not do), and the authoritative permissions context. It does not describe the output schema, but that is not required since an output schema exists. It also does not explicitly mention required parameters, but the schema clearly indicates required fields. Overall, it is complete for the intended use case.

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 does not add any meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. The schema has three parameters (listing_id, idempotency_key, reason) but the description does not explain their roles, semantics, or relationships. Given that schema description coverage is 0%, the description was expected to compensate, but it fails to do so, leaving agents to infer parameter meaning solely from names.

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 tool's purpose: to archive a publisher-owned marketplace listing. It specifies that archival removes the listing from new discovery/publication use, which is a precise and unambiguous action. It also distinguishes it from related actions by noting what it does not do (e.g., not modifying the action contract, not erasing revisions, not uninstalling installations), which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like unpublish or uninstall.

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 implicit usage guidance by clarifying the effect of archival (removing from discovery/publication) and the exclusions (does not uninstall, modify, or erase). This tells the agent when to use this tool versus others, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools. The mention of server-side tenant ownership and RBAC also provides context on authorization, which is useful for deciding when invocation is appropriate.

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