archive_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that archived tickets leave the board, disappear from list_tickets/search, return 404 from get_ticket, can be restored for 30 days, are auto-destroyed after that, and that 404 is ambiguous (already archived, never existed, or inaccessible). It also explains that no version parameter is accepted and that a retry is safe because there is no conflict. This is exceptional transparency.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first clause, then methodically expands into effects, lifecycle, security, and prereqs for the sibling delete_ticket. While long, every sentence adds distinct value—no fluff or repetition. The structure flows from action → consequences → nuance → guidance, which is optimal for an AI agent needing to make safe decisions.

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?

Despite there being no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete for the tool's complexity. It covers the effect on all relevant ticket operations, the restoration window, the lack of a restore endpoint, the 404 ambiguity, and the prerequisite for delete_ticket. Given the tool's dangerous and nuanced behavior, this fully equips an agent to invoke it correctly and avoid irreversible mistakes.

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 clarifies that only task_uuid is needed and explicitly states there is no 'version' parameter, which is a semantic detail beyond the schema. It also explains 404 semantics related to task_uuid (already archived, never existed, or on an inaccessible board), giving the agent deeper understanding of how the parameter value is interpreted. This far exceeds the minimal schema information.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Move a ticket to the workspace trash — the recoverable half of deleting.' This immediately clarifies the action and differentiates it from permanent deletion (delete_ticket). It also conveys the key consequence (leaves board, hidden from list/search, 404 on get_ticket), which distinguishes it from sibling tickets tools.

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 explicitly frames archiving as the 'recoverable half of deleting' and warns that there is no restore tool on this server, making the human-web-app restoration the only path back. It then provides a concrete alternative: 'If you intend to destroy the ticket permanently, call get_ticket FIRST and keep its workspace_uuid: delete_ticket needs one...' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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