crm_archive_object

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. It indicates a destructive action ('Archive (delete)'), which is helpful, but lacks critical details: whether archiving is reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to associated data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise—a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action without any fluff. Every word earns its place: 'Archive (delete)' clarifies the action, and 'a CRM object' specifies the target. This is efficient and immediately informative.

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 complexity (a destructive mutation tool), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, side effects), output format, error conditions, and usage context. For a tool that permanently modifies data, this minimal description is inadequate to ensure safe and correct 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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the schema itself clearly defines objectId (string) and objectType (enum with specific values). The description doesn't explain what these parameters mean (e.g., objectType selects the CRM entity type). Since the schema is well-structured with an enum, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description fails to compensate 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 verb ('Archive (delete)') and resource ('a CRM object'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like crm_update_object or crm_get_object by specifying the destructive action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from crm_batch_archive_objects or other archive tools for different object types, which slightly reduces specificity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., object must exist), when to choose batch operations (crm_batch_archive_objects) for multiple objects, or differences from other archive tools like calls_archive. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context for selection.

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