archive_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation is soft and preserves postings, which is a meaningful side effect. However, it does not mention reversibility, what happens to future postings, or visibility effects, leaving gaps in the behavioral picture.

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 sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the critical qualifier '(soft; the account keeps its postings)' is placed immediately, giving the agent the most important behavioral fact without extra words.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the most important side effect. It is minimally viable, but it omits contextual hints such as reversibility via unarchive_account or implications for postings/reporting, which would make it fully complete.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds no information about workspaceId or accountId beyond their obvious names. Since the parameter names are self-explanatory, this is not a complete failure, but the description provides zero semantic addition.

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 names a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('account'), and the parenthetical '(soft; the account keeps its postings)' distinguishes it from a hard delete. It is clear enough to separate from delete_account, though it does not explicitly contrast with unarchive_account.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unarchive_account or delete_account. The 'soft' hint implies a non-destructive use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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