crm_batch_archive_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'archive (delete)' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what permissions are required, or how errors are handled for partial failures in batch processing. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 - a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical context like error handling, batch size limits, confirmation requirements, or what happens when some objects in the batch can't be archived. The tool's complexity warrants more comprehensive documentation.

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' enum values represent or what format 'objectIds' should follow. The description fails to provide any semantic context beyond what the bare schema shows.

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 target ('multiple CRM objects'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this batch operation from its single-object sibling 'crm_archive_object', which is a missed opportunity for sibling differentiation.

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 like 'crm_archive_object' for single deletions or other batch operations. The description merely states what it does without context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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