archive_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: projects become hidden from default views, the action is reversible ('can be reopened later'), and there is a restriction on the default project. This goes beyond a bare mutation statement and gives the agent a solid understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence contributes relevant information: the action, the effect, the reversibility, and a constraint. 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers the action, post-condition, reversibility, and an important constraint. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool based on this description alone.

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 one parameter (project_id) with a description, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional parameter details or syntax, so the baseline of 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Archive a project.' It clearly states the main effect (hidden from default views) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like complete_project by noting the project 'can be reopened later.' This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to archive: to hide a project while keeping it reopenable. It also gives an explicit exclusion: 'Cannot archive the default project.' However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool like reopen_project, though it implies reversibility. This is clear usage guidance without fully naming alternatives.

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