projects.records.archive

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

Adds crucial context beyond annotations: clarifies that destructiveHint=true refers to state-changing archival (soft-delete), not data loss; explains the mechanism ('setting its archived_at timestamp'); and discloses side effects ('hiding it from all active project lists'). Does not mention rate limits or auth requirements.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence front-loads the action and mechanism; second sentence provides usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundant fluff or repetition of structured metadata.

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, presence of annotations covering safety hints, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, mechanism, side effects, usage context, and data preservation guarantees—sufficient for an agent to invoke this simple archival 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 100% description coverage ('Unique UUID identifier of the active project record to archive'), so the description does not need to duplicate parameter details. It implicitly references the project_id by mentioning 'a project' but adds no additional parameter syntax or semantics 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 explicitly states 'Soft-delete a project by setting its archived_at timestamp', providing a specific verb, resource, and mechanism. It distinguishes this from permanent deletion by emphasizing 'preserving all historical data' and 'without permanently destroying its records', clearly differentiating it from hard-delete alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'when a freelancer wants to close out a completed or cancelled project'. It also implies when-not-to-use by specifying 'without permanently destroying its records', though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool for hard deletion if one exists.

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