archive_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The word 'soft' hints that the operation is non-destructive, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the item disappears from listing, whether it can be restored, what happens to related entities). For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 description is a single, short sentence with no redundant words, which is concise. However, its brevity results in under-specification; it is not structured to convey key information. It is minimal but incomplete, so it earns a middle score.

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 tool with two required parametersrande no annotations or output schema, the description is far too sparse. It omits the action semantics (what 'soft' means), the effect on item availability, any permission requirements, and the expected response. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based solely on the description.

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 must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not mention workspaceId or itemId at all. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no context, semantics, or format expectations, leaving the agent to infer complex requirements like workspace context.

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 clear verb ('Archive') and resource ('item'), and the parenthetical '(soft)' signals that this is a non-destructive operation, distinguishing it from a hard delete like delete_item. However, it does not explicitly contrast with unarchive_item or define what 'soft' means in this domain, so the clarity is good but not fully comprehensive.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like unarchive_item, delete_item, or archive_account. The description provides no context on prerequisites, reversibility, or selection criteria. An agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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