archive_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('archive') and outcome ('remove from active view'), but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether archiving is reversible (though 'unarchive_issue' exists as a sibling), permission requirements, side effects, or what happens to archived data.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and outcome, and another documenting the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The 'Args' section is clear but could be integrated more seamlessly.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the archival process, whether it's permanent or temporary, what 'active view' means, error conditions, or return values. The existence of 'unarchive_issue' as a sibling suggests reversibility, but this isn't stated.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'issue_id' with a brief explanation ('The ID of the issue to archive'). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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') and resource ('security issue'), and explains the outcome ('remove it from active view'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unarchive_issue', but the purpose is 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or when to choose 'archive_issue' over other mutation tools like 'mark_false_positive' or 'mark_true_positive'.

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