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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add context, which it does: the task leaves active lists but retains history, and repeat calls report changed=false. It does not address permission requirements for shared projects or what the response body contains beyond the changed flag.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, followed by the reversal path and the idempotency note. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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, return values need not be explained, and the description covers effect, reversibility, and repeat-call behavior for a single-parameter mutation. The only missing piece is any prerequisite about permissions or access on shared projects.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single task_id property carries only a numeric pattern, with the description adding no meaning about identifier format or source. The parameter is largely self-evident from the tool name and required flag, so the gap is modest but real.

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 and resource ('Archive a task') plus a scope qualifier ('in a shared project'), and explicitly names the inverse sibling unarchive_task. An agent can distinguish this from complete_task, update_task, or bulk_update_tasks without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent to unarchive_task for reversal and warns that re-archiving is a no-op, which is actionable usage context. It stops short of saying when to archive versus complete or update a task, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance against the broader sibling set.

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