archive_lead_form

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether archiving is reversible, what status changes occur, any permission requirements, or what happens if the condition is violated. The 'not attached' constraint is useful but does not cover the behavioral consequences of the mutation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It conveys the key action, resource, and a necessary precondition 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the role of ad_account_id, the effects of archiving, and any prerequisites beyond the published Business Agent condition. An agent would likely need to infer or discover additional context to invoke it correctly.

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 only 50%; lead_form_id has a minimal description ('Lead form ID.') while ad_account_id has no description. The tool description does not explain the purpose of either parameter or how they relate to the archiving operation, leaving ad_account_id entirely ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('Lead Form'), with a precise condition ('not attached to a published Business Agent') that distinguishes it from related lead form operations like publish_lead_form, update_lead_form, and list_lead_forms. The scope is immediately clear.

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 applicability condition: only archive lead forms not attached to a published Business Agent. This implicitly tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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