manage_work_item_archive

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the state constraint and visibility effect, but does not detail other behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects.

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 concise (2 sentences plus bullet list), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value without 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 mutation with 3 required params and no output schema, the description covers the action, preconditions, and param meanings. It could optionally mention return values or error conditions, but is fairly 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all three parameters: project_id and work_item_id as UUIDs, and archive as a boolean with clear meaning. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 tool archives or unarchives a work item, using specific verbs and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like manage_cycle_archive or manage_module_archive.

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 provides a prerequisite (only completed/cancelled states) and a behavioral consequence (archived items no longer appear in active lists). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it.

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