archive_audience

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that audience_id accepts two formats, but fails to explain what archiving does (e.g., reversibility, visibility changes, impact on reports) or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence adds a valuable clarification without unnecessary detail. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: it does not disclose side effects or reversibility, and property_id is not explained. While the tool is simple and the audience_id nuance is covered, the missing behavioral context and parameter documentation make it incomplete.

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 schema provides two required string parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaningful semantics for audience_id by specifying numeric or full resource name formats, but property_id remains completely undefined, leaving a coverage gap for one of the two parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('a GA4 audience'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'archive_custom_dimension'. The additional sentence about accepted audience_id formats reinforces the resource scope.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'archive' and the resource type, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusionary context (e.g., do not use if deletion is intended). The description lacks mention of effects or prerequisites.

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