crm_archive_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Archive (delete)' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether archiving is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 key action and resource. Every word earns its place with zero waste, 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 tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral implications, parameter meanings, usage context, or expected outcomes. The conciseness comes at the expense of necessary context for safe and effective use.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'objectType' or 'objectId' represent, their formats, or the meaning of the enum values. The baseline is 3 since there are only 2 parameters, but the description fails to provide any semantic context beyond what's in the schema.

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 CRM object'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'crm_update_object' or 'crm_get_object' by specifying the destructive action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with batch archive tools like 'crm_batch_archive_objects'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'crm_batch_archive_objects' for batch operations and 'crm_archive_association' for related objects, the description offers no context about single-object vs. batch usage or prerequisites for archiving.

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