engagement_details_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'archive (delete)' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is permanent deletion or reversible archiving, what permissions are required, whether associated data is also affected, or what the response looks like. The parenthetical '(delete)' adds some clarification but remains ambiguous about the actual behavior.

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 - just three words. Every word earns its place: 'archive' specifies the action, '(delete)' clarifies the nature of the operation, and 'an engagement' identifies the resource. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the consequences of archiving, what data is affected, whether the operation can be undone, or what to expect as a response. The agent would be operating with significant uncertainty about this tool's behavior.

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. The description doesn't mention the 'engagementId' parameter at all, nor does it explain what format this ID should be in or where to obtain it. With only one parameter, this is a significant gap, but the tool's purpose is still somewhat inferable from context.

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 ('an engagement'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_archive_object' or 'engagement_details_get', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes this particular engagement archive operation.

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. With multiple archive tools in the sibling list (calls_archive, emails_archive, meetings_archive, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific engagement archive tool is appropriate versus other deletion/archive operations.

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