post-crm-v3-properties-objtype-batch-archive_archive

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a hard requirement ('REQUIRES body parameter') but does not explain the effects of archiving (e.g., soft delete, reversibility), permissions needed, or any side effects. The only behavioral trait added beyond the schema is the requirement itself, which is already obvious.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, but the included example is technically wrong, which reduces its value. A correct example would be more helpful; as written, it adds confusion rather than clarity.

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?

The tool has only a short description, no annotations, no output schema, and a schema with generic param descriptions. The description fails to explain the difference between archiving properties versus objects, the meaning of 'properties' in this context, or any post-archive behavior. The contradictory example further undermines its completeness.

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 provides generic descriptions for both parameters, but the description actively contradicts the schema. It directs the agent to use 'object IDs' and provides an example with 'id': '123', while the schema requires each input item to have a 'name' property (e.g., 'my_custom_property'). This misleading example could cause incorrect 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 properties.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling object-archive tools. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that these are custom property definitions rather than object records, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 when to use it (when archiving multiple properties) and provides a body example, but it does not offer explicit guidance on alternatives or scenarios where this tool should not be used. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling batch-archive tools are given.

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