archive_member

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The term 'soft-delete' discloses that the member is not permanently removed, but it does not explain effects on the member record, whether the action is reversible, or if list membership counts are affected.

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, focused sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the verb and includes the key clarification 'soft-delete' without unnecessary 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation, the description covers the core action, but without annotations or usage guidelines, it omits important behavioral context (reversibility, side effects) and when to use it rather than delete_member.

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 schema already describes both parameters (email, list_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond 'a member' and 'an audience,' which map directly to the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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' with clarification 'soft-delete') and the resource ('a member from an audience'). This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_member, which likely performs a hard delete.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use archive_member versus alternatives like delete_member or update_member. The 'soft-delete' hint implies an alternative to permanent deletion, but no explicit when/when-not is stated.

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