Metis — Archive Project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes that the project's status is set to 'archived', data is kept, and visibility changes. It does not mention side effects or reversibility, but the 'unarchive_project' sibling partially addresses that.

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: two sentences plus a parameter listing. All information is relevant and front-loaded. No unnecessary 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 the single parameter and existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, the effect on data availability, and the parameter. It is fully adequate for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains the required 'project_id' parameter. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could provide more detail (e.g., format or example).

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 tool's action: 'Archive a project — marks it inactive but keeps all data.' It uses a specific verb ('archive') and resource ('project'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'remove_project' and 'unarchive_project' by clarifying that data is preserved and the project remains available for context and search.

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 the effect ('disappears from active view but remains available for brainstorm context and search'), implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'remove_project'. The guidance is clear but could be more explicit.

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