docuseal_archive_template

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

The description discloses that the action is a 'soft delete', which is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond a simple 'archive'. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not elaborate on whether the operation is reversible, what happens to existing submissions, or any potential side effects. It offers some transparency but lacks depth.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids unnecessary words or repetition, earning its place entirely.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior. It clearly states the action and the target resource. However, it lacks mention of the operational impact (e.g., whether the template still appears in lists or if archiving is reversible), which would make it fully complete. The single-sentence description is adequate for this simple tool but not exhaustive.

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 already provides a clear description for the single parameter 'template_id' ('The unique identifier of the template to archive'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline 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 (soft delete) a template' uses a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('template') and further clarifies the action as a 'soft delete'. This is distinct from sibling tools like docuseal_list_templates or docuseal_clone_template, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, consequences, or scenarios where archiving is appropriate (e.g., versus deleting the template permanently). Without explicit usage context, the agent is left to infer the intended use.

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