archive_issue

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: 'history remains available' clarifies that the archive is non-deleting and preserves data, and 'using its current version' reveals the requirement for a matching expected_version. This goes beyond annotation coverage without contradicting it.

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 a single short sentence (8 words) that is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. Every clause adds meaningful information.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers the core purpose, a key behavioral trait (history retention), and the concurrency condition. It does not elaborate on usage context or all parameter semantics, but for a single-issue archive operation with structured schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 descriptions cover issue_id and project_ref, but not the remaining four parameters. The phrase 'using its current version' directly explains the purpose of expected_version, adding meaning not in the schema. However, other parameters like view, idempotency_key, and agent_session_handle remain unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage.

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 one issue') with a specific verb and resource, and adds 'using its current version' which indicates the optimistic concurrency scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_issue or get_issue.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions such as issue state or permissions. The only implicit usage cue is the word 'Archive', which is not enough to differentiate from other issue-management actions.

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