post-crm-v4-objects-objtype-batch-archive_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Archive' and the body requirement, but does not mention effects (e.g., whether archiving is reversible), permission requirements, or what happens to the objects. This is insufficient 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 sentences plus an illustrative example. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately gives a practical example. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool's relative simplicity, the description covers the core action and input format. However, it omits any information about the response or potential errors, and since there is no output schema, some description of return values would be helpful. Overall, it is minimally viable but has gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing an exact example of the inputs structure ({id: '123'}), which clarifies the expected format beyond the generic schema descriptions. It also emphasizes the requirement for the body parameter, adding semantic clarity.

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 objects by ID', which uses a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like batch-read, batch-create, and batch-update by explicitly mentioning archive and the batch nature. The example further clarifies the operation.

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 provides a concrete example of the required body format, which is a useful usage hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., deleting objects) or mention any exclusions. The context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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