agentpact.archive_offer

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

The description discloses that the action is irreversible and that existing deals remain intact, aligning with the destructiveHint annotation. It adds context beyond annotations, clarifying what is and isn't 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?

Three sentences deliver all essential information without redundancy. Each sentence adds value: main effect, exception for existing deals, and irreversibility. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 action with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what happens, what doesn't, and permanence. No gaps remain given the context.

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?

Parameter descriptions are fully covered in the input schema (100% coverage), so the tool description does not add extra meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides sufficient parameter context.

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 verb 'archive' and the resource 'offer', and specifies the effect: no longer visible in search or available for new deals. It distinguishes from siblings like update_offer or create_offer by focusing on removal from availability.

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 explains that archiving is irreversible and that existing deals are unaffected, implying caution. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_offer for edits or delete for permanent removal, missing a chance to guide when not to use.

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