products_archive

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 states the action is a move to recycling bin, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what permissions are required, or any side effects (e.g., impact on associated data). The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 with zero waste—every word contributes to the core action. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a destructive mutation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, return values, and differentiation from siblings, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'ID' which maps to 'productId', adding meaning by indicating it identifies the object to archive. However, it doesn't specify the ID format, source, or validation rules, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 ('Move') and resource ('Object identified by ID') with specific destination ('to the recycling bin'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'products_batch_archive' by focusing on single-object archiving, though it doesn't explicitly mention the 'products' context from the tool name.

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 like 'products_batch_archive' or other archive tools for different resource types (e.g., 'calls_archive', 'emails_archive'). The description implies it's for archiving products but doesn't specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.

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