archive_audience

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions the audience_id format; it does not state whether archiving is reversible, what side effects occur (e.g., affects reporting), or required permissions. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action and a key parameter clarification. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an incomplete parameter description (property_id unspecified), the description lacks essential context for a mutation tool. It does not explain the consequences of archiving or what happens after the call, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description adds valuable detail for audience_id, noting it may be a numeric id or full resource name. However, property_id is left entirely undefined, so the compensation is only partial for a two-parameter tool.

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') and the resource ('GA4 audience'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from siblings like list_audiences and create_event_audience by using a distinct verb and target.

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 conveys a clear use case: when you need to archive an audience. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no competing sibling exists (archive_custom_dimension is for a different resource). Thus, the context is clear enough without explicit 'when-to-use' guidance.

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