iyke_project_archive

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the soft-delete nature, data preservation, restrictions on 'Default', and fallback behavior. It could mention idempotency or error states but is still transparent.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence serves a purpose (soft-delete, effects, constraints, special cases). No wasted words.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary behavioral context: soft-delete, data retention, constraint on 'Default', and active project fallback. It is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter 'id' is described as 'Slug of the project to archive.' The description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 defines the tool's action: 'Archive a project (soft-delete — sets archived_at, no data removed).' It uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like iyke_project_update (restore capability) and iyke_project_create/list.

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 explains when to use it, what happens (project disappears from switcher, data preserved), and edge cases (refuses to archive 'Default', active project fallback). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the context is sufficient.

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