peach_archive_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the status requirement but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether archiving is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes a key constraint, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool is a mutation (archive) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral implications, return values, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 the 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the format of 'id' or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Archive') and resource ('a WhatsApp template'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'peach_list_templates' or 'peach_update_template' by focusing on archiving, but could be more specific about what archiving entails (e.g., permanent vs. reversible).

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?

The description provides implied usage by stating the template must be in 'approved, rejected, or draft status', which helps identify when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., 'peach_pause_template' or 'peach_delete_media') or prerequisites beyond status.

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