crm_batch_archive_associations

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 nature ('archive (delete)') which is critical, but lacks other behavioral traits: no mention of permissions required, whether deletions are reversible, rate limits for batch operations, response format, or error behavior when some associations fail. The parentheses around 'delete' suggest archiving might be soft deletion, but this is ambiguous.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. No wasted words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail given the parameter complexity. The parentheses around 'delete' add useful clarification without verbosity.

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 3 complex parameters (including nested objects and enums), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers the basic action but misses critical context: parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, error handling, and output expectations. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without guessing.

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 provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'fromObjectType' and 'toObjectType' represent (the object types being associated), what values the enums accept, or the structure of 'inputs' array (containing from/to objects with IDs). For a tool with 3 required parameters including complex nested objects, this is inadequate.

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 associations') with the scope 'in a single request'. It distinguishes from sibling 'crm_archive_association' by specifying batch operation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crm_archive_association' (single) or 'crm_batch_archive_objects' (different resource type). The description implies batch processing but doesn't specify prerequisites, error handling, or performance considerations for batch operations.

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