project-management

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which informs the agent of the operation's safety profile. The description adds the explicit archive/unarchive semantics but does not explain side effects like whether the project is hidden or if collaborators are notified. This is adequate given the annotations cover the core behavioral aspects.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action and target. It wastes no words and includes no filler, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

With a low-complexity tool and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. The archive/unarchive toggle is simple, and the description plus annotations sufficiently cover the operation's context. Minor gaps like error handling or invalid IDs are not expected to be in a description at this level.

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 already documents both parameters ('action' and 'projectId') with 100% coverage, so the description rests at baseline 3. The description's phrase 'by its ID' mirrors the schema's projectId description and the enum options, adding no new meaning. No additional parameter details are needed.

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 function: 'Archive or unarchive a project by its ID,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like add/update/find projects through the unique action words, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, such as 'project-move'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it discuss prerequisites or context. There is no mention of when archiving is appropriate or when to use a different project-management sibling tool.

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