tasks_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a destructive operation ('delete'), but doesn't specify whether archiving is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. For a mutation tool 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?

The description is extremely concise - just three words with a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and the core action is front-loaded. There's no wasted verbiage.

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 operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'archive' means operationally, whether it's permanent, what the response contains, or how it differs from deletion. The context demands more disclosure.

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 description doesn't mention the 'taskId' parameter at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is completely undocumented. However, since there's only one required parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description adds no value beyond the minimal schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Archive') and resource ('a task'), with the parenthetical '(delete)' providing additional semantic clarification. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tasks_batch_archive' or 'tasks_update', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tasks_batch_archive' for multiple tasks or 'tasks_update' to modify instead of archive. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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