admin_archive_project

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it sets archived_at, is idempotent (no-op when archived), is admin-only, and provides the API endpoint. It also clarifies organization-level independence.

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 concise, every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the main action. It avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 simple mutation tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, effect, idempotency, prerequisites, and API endpoint. It is fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description adds context beyond the schema, such as the requirement for platform-admin and the audit-log purpose of the reason field.

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 tool archives a single project, sets the archived_at timestamp, and distinguishes from organization-level lifecycle by noting sibling projects keep serving. This differentiates it from related tools like admin_reactivate_project.

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 specifies the tool is for operator moderation actions, requires platform-admin privileges, and is a no-op for already archived projects. It implies when to use but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives.

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