calls_batch_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool archives (deletes) multiple call records, indicating a destructive mutation, but lacks critical details: whether deletions are permanent or reversible, required permissions, rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a batch deletion tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource without any wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's function in a compact form, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 batch deletion tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, permissions), parameter semantics (e.g., ID formats), and expected outcomes, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use it correctly in context.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter 'callIds' is an array of call records to archive, which adds basic meaning beyond the schema's type definition. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., ID structure), size limits, or validation rules, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 ('multiple call records') with the operational context ('in a single request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'calls_archive' beyond implying batch capability, which is somewhat inferred but not directly stated.

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 like 'calls_archive' for single deletions or other batch operations. It mentions 'multiple call records' but doesn't specify thresholds, prerequisites, or error handling for batch operations, leaving the agent without contextual usage rules.

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