archive_zone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the soft-delete behavior and restorability, which are the most critical behavioral traits. However, it does not detail side effects such as whether the zone stops serving ads immediately or how archived zones are managed, though the existence of list_archived_zones and unarchive_zone siblings fills some gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that includes the verb, resource, and key behavioral note. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and behavior. It specifies the zone type and the soft-delete nature. It could optionally reference related tools, but that is not necessary for a tool of this complexity.

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 covers the single 'id' parameter with description 'Zone ID', achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context 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+resource ('Archive a standard zone') and adds key behavior ('soft-delete, can be restored later'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like vast_archive_zone and archive_email_zone by specifying 'standard zone', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for standard zones as opposed to other zone types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or when to prefer archive_zone over delete_zone or unarchive_zone, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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