products_batch_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is 'Archive (delete)' which implies destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether archiving differs from permanent deletion, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive batch operation, this is inadequate disclosure.

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 communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no space on redundant phrasing.

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 insufficient. It doesn't address critical context like what 'archive' means operationally, whether there are confirmation steps, what the response contains, error handling for invalid IDs, or rate limits. The agent lacks necessary information to use this tool safely and effectively.

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?

The description mentions 'by ID' which aligns with the 'productIds' parameter in the schema, adding minimal context about the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining format requirements, ID sources, or batch size limits. The baseline is appropriate given the single parameter, but more detail would be helpful.

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 batch of products by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'products_archive' by specifying batch operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other product tools like 'products_batch_update' or 'products_batch_read'.

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 like 'products_archive' (single product) or 'products_batch_update' (modify instead of archive). There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or typical use cases for batch archiving versus individual operations.

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