crm_archive_object

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. While 'Archive (delete)' clearly indicates a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'archive' means operationally (soft delete vs. hard delete), whether the action is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. The description fails to provide the necessary context for safe and effective use.

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 description mentions 'a CRM object' which implies both objectType and objectId parameters are needed, but adds no specific semantic information beyond what the schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'objectType' values mean or how 'objectId' should be formatted. The baseline is 3 since the description at least implies the parameters exist.

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 CRM object'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'crm_batch_archive_objects' or other archive tools for specific object types, which prevents a perfect score.

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 many sibling tools including batch archive operations and archive tools for specific object types, there's no indication of when this single-object archive is preferred over batch operations or when to use object-specific archive tools.

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