products_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is a move to recycling bin (implying soft deletion/reversibility), but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, rate limits, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste—clearly states action, target, and destination. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 insufficient. It doesn't cover success/error responses, side effects, or system behavior post-archiving. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed for safe 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 explains that 'productId' identifies the object to archive, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the ID format (e.g., numeric, UUID) or where to find it, leaving some ambiguity. With one parameter partially clarified, this meets the baseline.

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 ('Move') and target ('Object identified by ID'), specifying it goes 'to the recycling bin'. It distinguishes from siblings like products_batch_archive (batch operation) and products_update (modification rather than archiving). However, it uses generic 'Object' rather than 'Product', slightly reducing specificity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like products_batch_archive (for multiple products) or products_update (for modifications). The description implies archiving a single product, but doesn't clarify prerequisites, recovery options, or when archiving is appropriate versus deletion.

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