archive_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses immediate logout and inability to log in, which is good. However, it omits details like whether the user is removed from workspaces, if data is retained, or if the action is reversible (restore_user exists). The behavioral footprint is partly covered but not fully.

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 short, front-loaded with the main action and effect, and then provides parameter details. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral effects and parameter details. However, it does not explain what happens if archive_date is omitted (default to current time? never shown?), and omits side effects like cancelling future bookings. Still, it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains archive_date with format, constraint (past), and purpose (shown on profile and reports), adding value. The user_id description is minimal but functional. Overall, the description compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a user' and its immediate effects: 'They are logged out immediately and cannot log in.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_user (which doesn't deactivate) and restore_user (which reactivates).

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 implies usage for deactivating users but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_user or restore_user. No preconditions or exclusions are provided. The simple nature makes implied usage acceptable but not exemplary.

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