shelf_archive_booking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the precondition that only completed/cancelled bookings are eligible, but says nothing about what archiving actually does (soft vs hard removal), reversibility, or permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the guidance and behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and only half the parameters documented, the description is thin. It omits the effect of archiving, the alternative siblings, and details about the undocumented required bookingId, so an agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently.

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 coverage is only 50%: orgId has a description (defaulting to SHELF_ORG_ID/current workspace) while bookingId has none. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, leaving the required bookingId undocumented in both description and 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 states a specific verb (archive) and resource (booking) and adds a state qualifier (completed/cancelled). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like shelf_delete_booking or shelf_cancel_booking, which occupy adjacent conceptual space.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. The description implies archiving applies to completed or cancelled bookings but never states when an agent should choose this over cancel_booking, delete_booking, or simply leaving the booking as-is.

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