archive_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: marks inactive, keeps data, sets status='archived', project disappears from active view but remains available for brainstorm context and search. This is thorough, though it omits details on reversibility (inferred from sibling) and permissions.

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 highly concise: 4 sentences. The first explains the core action and effect, the second technical implementation detail, and the third/arg list. No redundant or unnecessary words. Front-loaded with purpose, well-structured.

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 moderate complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral effects and usage context. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., existence of project_id) or explicit note about reversibility (unarchive_project exists), but overall is sufficient for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in input schema). The description provides only 'project_id: The project_id to archive.' This adds little beyond the schema's parameter name and type; it does not specify format, source, or constraints. For a single required parameter, this is minimal added meaning.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Archive a project') and resource ('project'), and explains the effect: marks inactive, keeps data, disappears from active view but remains for context and search. It distinguishes from destructive alternatives like delete/remove, and sibling 'unarchive_project' exists.

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 for making a project inactive while preserving data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'remove_project', 'delete_task', or conditions/alternatives. The guideline is implicit in the effect description but lacks explicit 'use when' / 'use instead' clarity.

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