Archive a product (offer)

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

The description states "Idempotent: re-DELETE on an already-archived product also returns 204," while the annotations declare idempotentHint=false; repeated identical calls demonstrably have no further effect on the resource, so the two directly conflict. Everything else it discloses (rate limit, terminal state, 204 status) is genuinely useful, but the explicit contradiction of an annotation drives this to a 1 per the rubric.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, but the rate-limit boilerplate is placed ahead of the actual purpose statement, so the operational meaning is not fully front-loaded. Still appropriately sized for a destructive, irreversible operation.

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 terminal action with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the key missing facts: irreversibility through the open-api, admin-only restoration, the 204 response, and rate limits. It says nothing about side effects on collections, checkouts, or media tied to the product, which an agent would reasonably want to know.

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% (account, confirm, product_id each documented in-schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema — nothing about how product_id is resolved or when confirm must be set.

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 and resource ("Soft-archives the product — sets it to `Archived`"), which is far more precise than the title alone. The terminal-state note implicitly separates it from state-mutating siblings like update_product_state, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives strong usage context: the action is terminal at this surface and restoration is admin-only, which tells the agent this is a last-resort, confirm-first operation. It never names an alternative tool or states an explicit when-not to call it, so it falls short of a 5.

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