calls_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'archive (delete)' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether archiving is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated data, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 - a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Every element ('archive', 'delete', 'call record') earns its place by clarifying the tool's purpose efficiently.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It should address behavioral implications (permanence, permissions, side effects) and provide at least minimal parameter guidance. The current description leaves too many critical questions unanswered for safe agent invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'callId' parameter at all, leaving the single required parameter completely undocumented. However, with only one parameter and the tool name implying its purpose, the baseline is 3 - the description doesn't add value beyond what's inferable from context, but doesn't actively mislead either.

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 (delete)') and resource ('a call record'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'calls_batch_archive' or 'calls_delete' (if present), which would require a 5. The parenthetical '(delete)' adds useful clarification about the nature of archiving.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'calls_batch_archive' (for multiple calls) and 'calls_update' (for modification rather than deletion), the agent needs explicit guidance about single-record archival versus batch operations, but none is provided.

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