Archive or unarchive warehouse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple statement of the action by explaining that archive is a soft delete (status becomes ARCHIVED) and that the warehouse can no longer be used for stock, while unarchive sets status back to ACTIVE. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it does not cover permissions or edge cases like existing stock.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and conveys the essential behavior and consequences without any redundancy or irrelevant detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and effects.

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 action tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains both actions, the resulting status changes, and the business consequence (warehouse cannot be used for stock). It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites or restrictions, but the low complexity of the tool reduces the need for more context.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (id and action), so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds significant semantic value by explaining the effect of each action value: it details what 'archive' and 'unarchive' actually do to the warehouse status and usability, which the enum values alone do not convey.

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's purpose with specific verbs: 'Archive a warehouse ... or unarchive it.' It defines the resource (warehouse) and the distinct outcomes (status becomes ARCHIVED or ACTIVE), which fully distinguishes it from sibling action tools like category_action or variant_action.

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 the usage context (use this tool to archive or unarchive a warehouse) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_warehouse. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, so the 'when-to-use' is only self-evident from the action name.

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