manage_project_archive

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but the description adds valuable context: archived projects are hidden but not deleted, and all work items/cycles/modules are preserved. This goes beyond what annotations provide. Could still mention permissions or reversibility more explicitly.

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 extremely concise: a single-line summary, a few lines explaining behavior, then a clear Args section. Front-loaded with the verb, every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and behavioral implications (hidden but not deleted, items preserved). It could optionally mention that archived projects can still be retrieved via retrieve_project, but not necessary.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section compensates well, defining project_id as UUID and archive as boolean with clear semantics (True=archive, False=unarchive). This makes both parameters' purpose clear beyond their types.

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 'Archive or unarchive a project' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_project or manage_work_item_archive by explaining that archived projects are hidden but not deleted and all work items/cycles/modules are preserved.

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 when to use (to change archive status) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like manage_work_item_archive, manage_cycle_archive, or manage_module_archive. No direct guidance on when to use this vs alternatives.

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