post-crm-v3-objects-invoices-batch-archive_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the core action and provides an example input. It fails to disclose the consequences of archiving (e.g., reversibility, visibility changes), required permissions, or what the API returns—leaving the agent without safety or side-effect information.

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: two sentences plus an example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently adds the required parameter detail and usage example without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation and the complete schema coverage, the description is minimally viable—it covers the action and input. However, with no output schema and no annotation, it omits return values, error handling, and behavioral effects, which are useful for an agent to fully understand the tool's outcomes.

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 input schema already documents the 'inputs' array with 'id' strings, but the description adds clarifying context by explaining that the body must contain object IDs and gives a concrete JSON example. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 'Archive a batch of invoices by ID' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete or read operations. The batch and invoices scoping is explicit.

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?

Clear context that this is for batch archiving of invoices by ID, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it misses the top score.

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