openai_archive_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the action cannot be undone and that archived projects cannot be used or modified further—critical behavioral traits. It doesn't cover permissions or side effects on related resources, but the key irreversible nature is clearly communicated.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the irreversible consequence, and the parameter reference. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. It includes the crucial irreversible warning and a pointer to a sibling tool for ID lookup. The only missing contextual element is explicit authorization requirements, but that is not essential for basic use.

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 only parameter, project_id, is described as 'The project's ID (see openai_list_projects)'—this adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema type by telling the agent how to obtain a valid value. For a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient semantic enrichment.

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 starts with 'Archive a project,' which is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like openai_update_project and openai_get_project. It also explains the consequence ('cannot be used or modified further'), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but it clearly implies this tool is for permanently disabling a project. It also cross-references openai_list_projects for obtaining the project ID, which is a useful usage hint. However, it stops short of stating when not to use it.

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