ticktick_archive_project

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds valuable context: it specifies that archived projects are hidden but restorable, and requires v2 API authentication. This enhances understanding beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 highly concise and well-structured: three brief sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral and authentication details. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with idempotency), annotations cover key behavioral traits, and an output schema exists (reducing need to describe returns). The description adds useful context on archiving effects and authentication, though it could benefit from more explicit usage guidelines relative to siblings.

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%, with one parameter ('project_id') documented only in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details, such as format or sourcing of project_id. Baseline is 3 since the schema covers the parameter, but the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Archive a project') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ticktick_delete_project' by explaining that archived projects are hidden but restorable, though it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like 'delete_project' or 'update_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 implies usage when hiding a project without permanent deletion, as it notes archived projects can be restored. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'delete_project' or 'update_project', and doesn't mention prerequisites beyond authentication.

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