agentpact.archive_need

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable specifics: irreversibility, no effect on existing deals, and removal from search results. This goes beyond annotations to fully disclose the tool's impact.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the main action and effects with no unnecessary information. Every sentence adds value.

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 archive operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the outcome (need archived, no longer visible, irreversible, existing deals unaffected). It could mention error conditions or success response, but the core context is complete.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (id and apiKey) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional semantic value or usage details for the parameters, so baseline score of 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 specific action: archive a need, making it invisible in search and unavailable for new deals. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like archive_offer and cancel_deal by focusing on 'need' objects.

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 (removing a need from search/deals while preserving existing deals) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like archive_offer or cancel_deal. It provides clear behavioral effects but lacks direct guidance.

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