crm_archive_association

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'archive (delete)' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't clarify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what happens to related data. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core action and resource.

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 destructive mutation tool with 4 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral implications, error conditions, or what constitutes a successful archive operation. The agent would be left guessing about critical aspects of tool 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so all 4 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about what 'fromObjectId', 'fromObjectType', 'toObjectId', or 'toObjectType' mean, their expected formats, or how they relate to the association being archived. This leaves critical parameter semantics unexplained.

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/delete') and resource ('association between two objects'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_archive_object' or 'crm_batch_archive_associations', which would require more specific context about what distinguishes association archiving from object archiving.

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 like 'crm_batch_archive_associations' or 'crm_archive_object'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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