archive_project

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not explain what archiving entails, whether it is reversible, or what side effects may occur despite openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false providing only partial hints.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, making it concise and free of fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it is sparse enough that it does not fully leverage the opportunity to convey additional useful context.

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 performs an action on a project with no output schema, the description leaves out crucial context: what happens to the project when archived, whether it can be reversed, and how it relates to unarchive_project or delete_project. This is a state-changing tool, and the minimal description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand implications.

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 fully describes the single parameter project_id with the description 'the id of the project', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies since 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?

The description 'Archive a project' clearly identifies the action and resource, using a specific verb. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like unarchive_project and delete_project, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The presence of unarchive_project and delete_project in sibling tools makes this gap notable, as an agent receives no advice on choosing among these related operations.

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