archive_wallet_group

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool archives groups and returns responses, but it does not explain what archiving entails (e.g., reversible? hides groups from lists? impacts wallets?), nor does it mention error handling or any destructive aspect. This lack of detail hinders safe invocation.

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 concise, with only two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action, and the second clarifies the expected input and output. While it lacks detail, it is well-structured and front-loaded, earning a high score for 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?

Given the tool's complexity (archiving with nested parameters), no annotations, and a rich output schema left unexplained, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the meaning of archiving, the response structure, or how to handle multiple group requests, leaving critical gaps for an agent to fill.

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. It mentions 'list of group names', but the schema reveals a nested container structure with a required array of ArchiveWalletGroupRequest objects. The description simplifies the actual parameter format and does not explain the need for a container or how to pass multiple groups, which could lead to incorrect parameter construction.

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 explicitly states the action ('Archive wallet groups') and resource ('wallet groups'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like unarchive_wallet_group by specifying the archiving action and mentions the input/output types, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 such as unarchive_wallet_group or list_groups. The description does not indicate prerequisites, side effects, or scenarios where archiving is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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