archive_publisher

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions the critical soft-delete and restorable nature, but does not cover permissions, side effects on associated entities, or the restoration path. Basic behavior is disclosed, but important operational details are missing.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and a key attribute (soft-delete/restorable). It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and behavior. It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning how restoration occurs (e.g., via unarchive_publisher), but is adequate for a basic operation.

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 'id' as 'Publisher ID' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds the context that this ID is for the publisher to archive, but does not enrich beyond what the schema provides. 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 states the exact action: 'Archive a publisher' with the key behavior 'soft-delete, can be restored later'. It clearly distinguishes from hard delete (delete_publisher) and restoration (unarchive_publisher), using a specific verb and resource.

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 when to use this tool: when you want to remove a publisher but keep the ability to restore. It does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_publisher or unarchive_publisher, but the soft-delete/restorable context makes the use case clear.

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