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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, i.e. a non-destructive mutation. The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: the project disappears from the default dashboard yet remains discoverable through list_projects and search. It does not state reversibility or idempotency, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core action plus its visibility consequence are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema mutation with annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key effect (hidden from default views, still searchable). The main omission is that it never points to unarchive_project as the undo path, which would round it out.

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 the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing about the parameter's format or provenance, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Archive a project') plus a clarifying statement of what archiving does: hides from the default dashboard but keeps the project reachable via list_projects and search. This implicitly separates it from delete_project, though no sibling is named outright.

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 rather than stated: the reader can infer archive is preferred over delete when the project should be retained. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, and the counterpart unarchive_project is never mentioned as the reversal path.

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