rh11_projects_archive

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint: true, so the agent knows it's destructive. The description goes beyond this by clarifying it's a soft delete and explaining how to reactivate (by creating a new project with the same ASIN+keyword+region), which is valuable behavioral context. No contradictions.

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: the first states the operation, the second provides recovery context. No redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the operation and its reversibility. It could mention side effects on associated data, but the core behavior is clear. The destructive annotation is already present, and the description adds the soft-delete nuance.

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 schema documents ui_id as 'Project unique identifier' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-specific information, though the reactivation note hints at project identity fields (ASIN+keyword+region), which provides some context beyond the raw schema.

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 (soft delete)') and the object ('a Rhodium11 Amazon project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, update, get, and list. The mention of reactivation adds clarity about the operation's effect.

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 archiving a project is desired, and the reactivation note provides context on recovery, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced.

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