archive_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful behavior — preserving operations and history — but says nothing about reversibility (can the account be unarchived?), whether the account remains visible in lists or reports, authorization requirements, or what happens to related budgets/reminders.

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?

It is a single short sentence with the core action and the most important preservation guarantee front-loaded. There is no filler.

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 state-changing account operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits reversibility, visibility effects, permission requirements, and the meaning of the only parameter, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently beyond the most basic path.

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?

There is one required parameter, 'id', and schema description coverage is 0%. The description implies an account is targeted but never explains that 'id' is the account identifier or what format it takes, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Архивировать счёт' (archive account). It also clarifies the key distinction from a destructive delete by saying operations and history are preserved, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 implies this is the non-destructive alternative to deletion by noting that operations and history are preserved, but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of update_account or another account tool. The usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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