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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so: it discloses the exact state change (hidden from default listing, quota exempt), the reversibility guarantee, and the non-destructive side effect ('files, compile and review keep working, so nothing is destroyed'). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before mutating state.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect, then reversibility, then the usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

Covers the full surface for an archival mutation: what changes, what does not change, how to undo it, and when to invoke it. Although an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to describe return values, and the behavioral picture is complete.

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 0% and there is one required parameter (project_id). The description doesn't explain the format or source of project_id, but the parameter name is self-explanatory and only one param exists. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a single obvious identifier.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Archive a project') and immediately defines the behavioral effect: hides from list_projects and stops quota counting. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like unarchive_project and list_projects, which it explicitly names.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('empty/abandoned projects the user wants out of their list') and names the inverse tool ('Reversible via unarchive_project'). The agent knows both the target scenario and the reversal path.

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