archive_projectMove a project to status='archived'. Hidden from the default dashboard list. Optional reason is shown on the project page. Restore later with restore_project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | project id to archive | |
| reason | No | optional reason shown on the project page |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"project id to archive"Input schema / properties / reason / descriptionAdded value: +"optional reason shown on the project page"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description explains the specific behavioral effect (status change, hidden from dashboard) and the optional reason display. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context.
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 sentences, zero waste: action stated first, then effect, then restoration option. Front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists, idempotentHint) and sibling context, the description covers the key points: what it does, behavioral effect, and how to revert. It does not explain the output format, but that is handled by the output schema.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely reiterates the parameter purpose ('optional reason is shown on the project page') without adding new meaning.
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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('project'), explicitly stating the status change to 'archived' and the effect of hiding from dashboard. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'archive_thread' and mentions the counterpart 'restore_project'.
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 indicates when to use the tool (to hide a project from default list without deletion) and provides an alternative for reversal ('Restore later with restore_project'), though it lacks explicit exclusions or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.