calls_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Archive (delete)' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify whether archiving is permanent, reversible, or affects related data. No information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format is provided, which is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise with just four words, front-loading the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly despite its brevity.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter that needs explanation, the description is incomplete. It identifies the basic operation but lacks critical context about behavior, consequences, parameter usage, and alternatives. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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 description mentions no parameters, while the schema has one required parameter (callId) with 0% description coverage. Since the schema provides the parameter structure but no semantic context, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'callId' represents or where to obtain it, leaving a gap in understanding.

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 action ('Archive (delete)') and resource ('a call record'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'calls_get' or 'calls_update' by specifying the destructive archival operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'calls_batch_archive' which handles multiple calls.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calls_batch_archive' for multiple calls or 'calls_update' for modifications. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions required, or consequences of archiving, leaving the agent with insufficient context for appropriate tool selection.

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