archive_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the permission requirement but does not explain what archiving does to the user's data, assignments, or access, nor whether the action is reversible or has side effects. This is insufficient for a mutating administrative 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 exceptionally concise: one sentence states the action and scope, and a second states the permission requirement. Every word contributes, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description does not provide enough context. It omits the meaning of confirm_user_id, the effect of archiving, reversibility, and what response or outcome to expect. The permission note helps but is not sufficient.

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%, and the description adds no explanation of the three parameters. While user_id is somewhat self-explanatory, confirm_user_id and especially profile are left undefined; confirm_user_id likely serves as a safety confirmation but this is never stated. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Archive'), identifies the resource ('user'), and narrows the scope to 'a supervisor or interviewer user,' which helps distinguish it from related sibling tools like unarchive_user or create_user. This is clear and unambiguous.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Requires admin_write permission') and implies the target audience, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unarchive_user, nor does it mention any exclusion conditions. Usage context is implied rather than fully specified.

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