paperclip_archive_company

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds that the action is irreversible through the API and uses a specific POST endpoint, which are important behavioral traits not captured by annotations alone.

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?

Well-structured with sections for args, returns, examples, and error handling. The warning icon and front-loaded critical info (board-only, irreversible) make it concise yet informative.

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?

Fully covers purpose, usage, parameters, return value, and error handling. Given the simple single-parameter input and no output schema, the description leaves no gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds value by providing an example UUID and clarifying the parameter purpose, though the schema already has a description. The error handling section also adds 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 it archives a company by setting status to 'archived' and uses a dedicated POST endpoint, not PATCH. It distinguishes from paperclip_update_company, which is for other field updates.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (decommissioning a company) and when-not-to-use (updating other fields), with a direct reference to the sibling tool paperclip_update_company. Also notes board-only authentication requirement.

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