Archive Media

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses async processing and that a background_job_status object is returned instead of a Media object, the 100-item batch cap, type-specific exceptions, required token permissions including delegate-to-contact scopes, the confirm=true requirement, and a warning about shared access, notifications, and provider charges. Rich, actionable behavioral context despite annotations already flagging destructive/idempotent traits.

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 essential facts (batch size, async return type, non-archivable cases) are front-loaded in the first two sentences, but a large bolus of permissions prose and the generic 'may share access, notify people or incur provider charges' warning adds bulk that reads as boilerplate rather than task-specific guidance.

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, async, nested-payload tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: return type (background_job_status), async nature, auth and delegation, confirm requirement, and ineligibility rules. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning not in the schema: the up-to-100 list cap on hashed_ids and the explicit confirm=true precondition for the mutation. That is genuine value beyond the field-level descriptions.

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 ('archive medias') plus batch scope (up to 100 per request). The 'archive' semantic is naturally distinct from siblings like delete_media, restore_media, and restore_deleted_media, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 useful eligibility constraints (webinar medias and pre-Sept-2023 Soapbox videos cannot be archived) and the confirm=true prerequisite, which imply when the call will succeed. However, it never states when to prefer archive over a delete or bulk-action sibling, leaving the alternatives unaddressed.

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