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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds meaningful context by specifying that issues are kept and the project only leaves active lists. This clarifies the actual scope of the destructive operation beyond the raw annotation.

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 deliver the essential information with no filler. The key behavioral guarantee ('leaves the active lists', 'issues are kept') is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 tool with one simple parameter, no output schema, and adequate annotations, the description covers the essential call-time knowledge: what it does and what it preserves. It does not discuss reversibility or side effects on other project resources, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter with a clear description ('Project name, slug or id.'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the semantic load.

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 action ('Archive a project'), the resource, and the concrete effect: it leaves the active lists while keeping issues. This distinguishes it from delete_project (which would destroy) and from archive_doc/archive_issue, which target different resource types.

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 use case: when you want the project out of active lists but still want its issues retained. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this over delete_project or update_project, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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