vtex_archive_promotion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Archive a promotion' implies a mutation operation that likely changes the promotion's status, but it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to archived promotions (e.g., if they remain accessible). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like reversibility, permissions, or system impact, nor does it explain what happens after archiving (e.g., error handling or confirmation). For a tool that modifies state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'promotionId' clearly documented as 'Promotion ID to archive'. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Archive a promotion' clearly states the verb ('archive') and resource ('promotion'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vtex_delete_promotion' by specifying archiving rather than deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'vtex_unarchive_promotion'.

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 archiving is appropriate versus deleting or unarchiving, nor does it reference prerequisites like needing an existing promotion ID. With siblings like 'vtex_delete_promotion' and 'vtex_unarchive_promotion' available, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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