Archive a project

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent, so the description adds value by clarifying what destructive means here: the project is removed from the active list rather than permanently destroyed. The explicit 'Requires human confirmation' warning is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core action and effect, then add the critical human-confirmation requirement. There is no filler or 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 single-parameter tool with destructive and idempotent annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it states the operation, its visible effect, and a key requirement. It could be more complete by noting whether archiving is recoverable or how it differs from deletion, but nothing essential is missing for making the call.

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%, and the description does not explain projectId, its source, format, or how to obtain valid values from sibling tools like list_projects. The parameter name is self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no meaning beyond the input 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 states a specific verb ('Archive'), a clear resource ('an Overleaf project'), and the concrete effect ('removing it from the active list'). This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_project or rename_project because archiving is framed as moving out of the active list rather than deleting or renaming.

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 gives no guidance on when to use archive_project versus delete_project or other sibling tools. 'Requires human confirmation' is a prerequisite/warning, not a usage rule, and there is no mention of when archiving is preferable to deletion or how to reverse the action.

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