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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating that time and invoices are kept, telling the agent what is NOT lost. It still does not state that the action is reversible via unarchive_project, but the retention detail is genuine value beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core effect (hiding from lists) is front-loaded and the retention guarantee follows immediately.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description only needs to convey the semantic effect, which it does. Mentioning reversibility (unarchive_project) would fully close the loop.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents that it accepts a project id or a "Client / Project" string. The description adds nothing about parameter format, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (hide/archive) and resource (project), and clarifies the non-destructive nature by noting time and invoices are kept. It does not name the sibling unarchive_project, which would make the archive/reverse pairing explicit, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to hide a project from lists while retaining its data, which implicitly contrasts with deletion. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the unarchive_project counterpart, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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