archive_project

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it sets status='archived' in the projects table, keeps all data, and makes the project disappear from active views while remaining available for context. This is transparent about non-destructive nature and persistence, though it does not mention permissions or reversibility (though implied by unarchive_project).

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 relatively concise, with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by a technical detail and consequence. The args section is redundant given the schema but harmless. Could be slightly tighter by integrating the arg mention into the body.

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, the description covers the action, impact, and parameter. However, it does not mention the output schema or return value, and reversibility is only implied by sibling names. For a simple mutation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so description must compensate. The 'Args' section merely restates the schema ('project_id: The project_id to archive') without adding format, source, or validation details. No additional meaning beyond the 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 a project') and the effect ('marks it inactive but keeps all data'). It distinguishes from siblings like unarchive_project (reverse) and remove_project (deletion). The verb+resource is specific.

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 when to use: when you want to hide a project from active views but retain data for search and context. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools provides differentiation. Slight lack of explicit guidance.

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