post-crm-v3-objects-quotes-batch-archive_archive

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it does not explain what 'archive' entails (e.g., reversible, soft-delete, permanent), nor does it mention success/failure/partial failure behavior for batch operations. The only additional context is the required body parameter, which is already evident from the schema. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus an example. It front-loads the core action first, then gives a usage example. No filler or redundant information, despite the example somewhat duplicating schema details.

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 simple one-parameter tool with a clear schema and example, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not describe return values, error handling, or nuances of batch archiving (e.g., partial success). Given no output schema and no annotations, more context would be beneficial, especially since this is a mutation operation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete example showing the exact request body structure ({body: {inputs: [...]}}), which clarifies how the 'inputs' parameter should be wrapped. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Array of items' description and aids correct invocation.

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 a batch of quotes by ID.' It identifies the specific resource (quotes) and scope (batch), distinguishing it from sibling tools like the generic batch-archive or single-delete tools. The verb 'archive' is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage for archiving multiple quotes by ID, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., single delete or the generic objtype batch-archive). No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, so the guidance is only implied by the tool name and wording.

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