products_batch_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool archives/deletes products, which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what 'archive' means operationally, whether there are rate limits, or what permissions are required. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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. Every word earns its place: 'archive (delete)' clarifies the action, 'batch' indicates scope, 'products' specifies the resource, and 'by ID' hints at the parameter. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 batch operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after archiving, whether there's confirmation or error handling, or how this differs from other archive operations. The context demands more complete guidance 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' which clarifies the purpose of the productIds parameter, adding some semantic value. However, it doesn't explain the format of IDs, whether they must exist, or any constraints on batch size. With one parameter and partial clarification, this meets the baseline for adequate but incomplete documentation.

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 batch of products by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'products_archive' (singular) or 'crm_batch_archive_objects' (similar batch operation on different resources), 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. It doesn't mention when batch archiving is preferred over individual archiving (products_archive), what happens to archived products, or any prerequisites like permissions. The sibling list shows multiple archive tools, but no differentiation is provided.

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