engagement_details_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'archive (delete)' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify if this is reversible, requires special permissions, has side effects on associated data, or provides confirmation feedback. 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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient for quick comprehension despite its limitations in completeness.

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 operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical questions: Is this permanent deletion? What happens to associated data? What permissions are required? What does it return? The context demands more disclosure for safe 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 information beyond what the schema provides (a single 'engagementId' parameter with 0% schema description coverage). Since there's only one parameter and the description doesn't explain what an 'engagementId' is or where to find it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate - the schema shows the parameter exists but neither source provides meaningful semantics.

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 ('an engagement'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'calls_archive', 'emails_archive', or 'engagement_details_get', which would require clarification about what makes 'engagement_details_archive' unique versus other archive operations.

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. With multiple sibling archive tools (e.g., 'calls_archive', 'emails_archive', 'engagement_details_get'), there's no indication of whether this is for permanent deletion versus soft archiving, or when to choose this over other engagement-related tools like 'engagement_details_get' or 'engagement_details_update'.

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