calls_batch_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive action ('Archive (delete)') which is critical, but lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or what happens to associated data. The batch nature is mentioned but without behavioral specifics.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 batch operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It misses critical context: parameter documentation, behavioral details (permissions, reversibility), output expectations, and differentiation from siblings. The conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'callIds' parameter at all, leaving the single required parameter undocumented. No format, constraints, or examples are provided. Baseline would be lower, but the tool has only one parameter, making the gap slightly less severe.

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 ('multiple call records') with the scope 'in a single request'. It distinguishes from 'calls_archive' by specifying batch operation, though not explicitly naming the sibling. The parenthetical '(delete)' adds clarity about the destructive nature.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calls_archive' for single records or other batch operations. The description implies batch context but doesn't provide prerequisites, limitations, or comparative advice with sibling tools.

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