Archive a product (offer)

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

The description claims 'Idempotent: re-DELETE on an already-archived product also returns 204,' which directly contradicts the annotation idempotentHint=false. Despite otherwise valuable disclosures (rate limit, terminal state, admin-only restoration), the explicit contradiction of structured metadata forces a 1.

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?

Front-loads the rate limit, then the core behavior, then the terminal-state warning and idempotency note. Every sentence carries relevant information, though the rate-limit bullet is somewhat boilerplate against the more distinctive terminal-state semantics.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers destructiveness, irreversibility, restoration restrictions, rate limits, and return code. The only completeness defect is the idempotency claim, which is wrong rather than missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents account, confirm, and product_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and the exact resulting state: 'Soft-archives the product — sets it to `Archived`.' It is readily distinguishable from state-toggling siblings like update_product_state and toggle_product_availability.

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?

Provides strong usage context by declaring the operation terminal at this surface (cannot return to PUBLIC/HIDDEN via open-api, restoration admin-only), which tells the agent this is a one-way action to use deliberately. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling for reversible state changes, but the context is clear.

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