Archive a task without deleting its data or history, preserving a full record for later reference.
Archive a task without deleting its data or history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| expected_version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the non-destructive framing in the description is partly redundant. It does add useful context that history is retained, but says nothing about permission requirements or whether archiving is reversible.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. Nothing is wasted.
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 mutation tool with a non-obvious expected_version parameter and no output schema, the description omits the concurrency semantics, reversibility, and any alternative (restore_task). It is not adequate for an agent to invoke confidently.
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 neither parameter is documented in the schema. task_id is self-evident, but expected_version clearly implies optimistic-concurrency semantics that the description never explains—a genuine gap the description should fill.
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?
States a specific verb (archive) and resource (task), and adds scope clarification that the data and history are preserved. It implicitly distinguishes itself from a delete-style operation, though it never names a sibling tool to sharpen the contrast.
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?
There is no guidance on when to archive versus update_task, or how to undo it via restore_task, which is a listed sibling. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.