redmine_project_archive

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a mutating action ('Archive') but does not explain side effects (e.g., impact on issues, reversibility), required permissions, idempotency, or return value. The endpoint reference adds little behavioral context.

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 extremely concise—one short sentence that includes the action and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, with no redundant words. Though it forgoes extra context, it is appropriately compact for such a simple operation.

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 without annotations and without an output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits critical context such as whether archiving is reversible, consequences for associated issues, constraints on which projects can be archived, and what the response looks like. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) as 'project id or identifier'. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Archive' and the resource 'project', and includes the HTTP endpoint, making the action specific and unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like unarchive and delete by naming a different verb, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as redmine_project_unarchive or redmine_project_delete. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., project must not be already archived), intended context, or conditions that would make this the right choice.

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