archive_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the key behavioral trait: the operation is a reversible soft-delete. It does not detail side effects like how archived contracts appear in listings, but for a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient disclosure of the primary behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and clarifies its non-destructive nature. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool is simple: one ID parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description adequately explains what the tool does and the crucial reversibility context. It does not discuss return values or permissions, but these are less critical given the simplicity and the presence of sibling tools for restoration and listing.

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 has one parameter with full description coverage (100%) for 'id' as 'Contract ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('contract'), and immediately clarifies the operation is a soft-delete that is reversible. This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling tool 'delete_contract' (permanent deletion) and pairs naturally with 'unarchive_contract'.

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?

By stating 'soft-delete, can be restored later', the description implies it should be used when the contract may be needed again, as opposed to hard deletion. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the contrast with permanent deletion is clear from the context and sibling tools.

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