archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the core action (setting active=False) and the return values, but does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, idempotent, or what prerequisites (e.g., permissions) are needed. Some transparency, but gaps remain.

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 two sentences plus a tip, which is reasonably concise. The tip is front-loaded, which is helpful. However, the emoji and general advice could potentially be trimmed without losing essential information.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return format but lacks parameter details. The sibling tools include many CRUD operations, but the description does not position this tool relative to them. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not describe the parameters 'model' or 'record_id' beyond their names. It does not provide guidance on valid values for 'model' or the format of 'record_id'. Minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 specifies the verb 'Archive (deactivate)' and resource 'a record', and explains the mechanism (setting active=False). It distinguishes this tool from general update or delete operations by focusing on deactivation, and explicitly states the prerequisite (model must have an active field).

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 gives a helpful tip to check for canonical recipes before multi-step work, and states the precondition (only works on models with active field). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like delete or update.

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