Archive or unarchive variant

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses soft delete, status transitions (ARCHIVED/HIDDEN), storefront visibility, restorability, and the need to publish via update_variant after unarchive. This is rich and transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no filler. Each clause earns its place by explaining the state transitions and the necessary follow-up.

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?

The tool is simple with only 2 params and no output schema, and the description covers the essential behavior, state changes, storefront visibility, and follow-up action. It is complete for selecting and invoking the tool 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 covers both parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds meaning to the action enum by explaining the outcome of each value (archive -> ARCHIVED, unarchive -> HIDDEN), going beyond the schema's 'Action to perform.' Id semantics remain as provided by schema.

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 tool archives or unarchives a variant with specific behavioral effects. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the follow-up via update_variant.

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 explains the two actions and notes that unarchive requires a subsequent publish via update_variant, naming an alternative tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for the agent to decide.

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