Archive Asset

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by clarifying that this is a soft-delete: it sets archived_at and preserves original rows for versioning. This materially reduces the risk of an agent assuming permanent destruction. It also mentions the cost and API key requirement, adding operational transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded. The core action and state change come first, followed by the preservation behavior and then operational prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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's purpose, effect, cost, auth requirement, and non-destructive nature are all covered. The main omission is the return value or response shape, especially since no output schema is provided, but for a simple soft-delete operation the provided context is otherwise sufficient.

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 67%, with request_id and idempotency_key already described in the schema. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail, but asset_id is self-explanatory given 'archive an asset.' The description does not compensate for the undocumented asset_id semantics, but the gap is minor.

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: 'Soft-delete an asset (sets archived_at).' This is a specific verb plus resource, and it distinguishes the tool from related siblings like upload_asset and update_asset by clarifying the archive semantics.

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 usage context is implied through the 'soft-delete' and 'archive' language, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as update_asset, upload_asset, or a hard-delete path.

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