tasks_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('delete'), which is critical, but lacks other behavioral context: no mention of permissions required, whether the action is reversible, confirmation prompts, error conditions, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Extremely concise with zero wasted words. The description is front-loaded and gets straight to the point in a single, clear phrase. Every word earns its place by specifying both action and resource.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like return values, error handling, side effects, or security requirements. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies a 'taskId' parameter is needed to identify the task, but doesn't explain format, constraints, or where to obtain it. The description adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from the schema property name. With 0% coverage and 1 parameter, baseline expectations are higher than delivered.

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 (delete)') and resource ('a task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tasks_update or tasks_get by specifying the destructive operation. However, it doesn't clarify if 'archive' is distinct from permanent deletion, which could be relevant given sibling tools like tasks_batch_archive exist.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), when to use batch operations (tasks_batch_archive) instead, or how this differs from other deletion-like tools in the system. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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