post-crm-v3-associations-var-var-batch-archive_archive

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior independently. It states the body requirement and provides an example, but the example is incomplete and misleading (shows only 'id' fields, omitting required 'from', 'to', 'type' structure). No mention of effects (e.g., destructive nature), reversibility, or error conditions.

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 two sentences and an example. It front-loads the primary action and requirement without unnecessary verbosity. The example could be formatted better but does not waste 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 is incomplete. It fails to clarify the archive semantics, the complete request structure, or the role of path parameters. The misleading example compounds the gap, leaving an agent under-informed about critical invocation details.

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%, and the description adds minimal value. The example attempts to illustrate inputs but is structurally incorrect per the schema, and it does not explain the meaning of fromObjectType, toObjectType, or the nested from/to/type fields. This could mislead an agent into sending an invalid payload.

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 'Archive a batch of associations', identifying the verb (archive), resource (associations), and batch scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like batch-create or batch-read for associations. However, the example payload is simplified and inconsistent with the schema, slightly muddying the precise operation but not the overall purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a requirement ('REQUIRES body parameter') but does not explain when archiving is appropriate, prerequisites, or alternatives. The sibling list includes create/read/archive for associations, but the description does not differentiate usage.

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