archive_product

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 effectively explains that this is a 'soft-delete' operation, retaining the product record for history, which clarifies the mutation's nature and permanence. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clarifying detail. Both sentences earn their place by adding value, with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 mutation with no annotations), the description adequately covers the soft-delete behavior, but lacks details on permissions or error cases. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, making it mostly complete for basic use.

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 for its single parameter 'product_id', but the description compensates by implicitly defining it as the product to archive. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could specify format or constraints. With one parameter, the baseline is high.

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 specific action ('Archive a product') and resource ('product'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_customer' (hard delete) or 'update_product' (modify). It precisely communicates the tool's function without being tautological.

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 implies usage when a product should be removed from sale but retained for history, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_customer' (hard delete) or 'update_product' to modify status. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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