Archive or unarchive category

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a key behavior: archive is a soft delete (hidden from storefront, restorable). It also reveals the conditional requirement for archive_variants, which is meaningful side-effect information. Missing are details on permissions or return format, but the disclosed behavior is non-trivial and valuable.

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 two sentences, directly opens with the verb, and contains no filler. It efficiently packs the soft-delete framing, the restorability, and the conditional archive_variants requirement without repetition.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core context well: what the tool does, when to use it, and an important side-effect rule. It does not explain return values or broader effects on products, but for a simple toggle action, the context is sufficiently 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by explaining when archive_variants becomes necessary and clarifying the effect of the 'archive' action. This enrichment justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Archive a category ... or unarchive it.' It also defines the nuance of soft delete and clearly distinguishes from siblings like update_category by naming the two actions. The title and description align, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use the tool: when an archive/unarchive action is needed. It adds a crucial conditional ('If the category is the only one of a product with non-archived variants, archiving requires archive_variants=true'), which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_category, though the title and action enum make this clear.

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