Listing Bureau - Amazon Organic Ranking

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint: true, but the description adds essential behavioral context by clarifying this is a 'soft delete' rather than permanent destruction, and documents the specific recovery mechanism (recreation with same ASIN+keyword+region). This prevents the agent from assuming irreversible data loss.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first defines the action and scope, second provides critical recovery information. Every word earns its place. Front-loaded with the verb and resource identifier.

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 single-parameter destructive operation without output schema, the description adequately covers the action, soft-delete nature, and recovery path. Could marginally improve by mentioning success indicator or immediate side effects (e.g., visibility changes), but sufficient for 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'ui_id' parameter ('Project unique identifier'). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed given the complete schema documentation. Baseline score applies.

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 specific verbs ('Archive (soft delete)') and identifies the exact resource ('Listing Bureau Amazon project'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like lb_projects_update or lb_projects_list by specifying the archive/soft-delete action.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, it provides crucial usage context by explaining that archived projects 'can be reactivated by creating a new project with the same ASIN+keyword+region.' This recovery guidance implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when temporary removal is acceptable) versus permanent deletion.

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