archive_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral side effects: it moves projects and tasks, cancels open tasks, clears focus if set, and logs the event. It also states the archiving restriction and area exception, giving the agent an accurate model of consequences.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by side effects, constraints, and parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repeated schema information.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, preconditions, exclusions, side effects, and parameter meaning. An agent can decide whether to call it and what to pass without further clarification.

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 schema only provides project_name as a string with 0% coverage, so the description carries full responsibility. It compensates well by defining project_name as 'The project ID or folder name to archive', adding practical meaning beyond the raw type.

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 opens with 'Archive a completed project', a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes archiving from sibling tools like cancel_task or update_task_status. It then explains the concrete effect (moving to Projects/_archive/), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit preconditions: only projects with status 'done' can be archived, and areas cannot be archived because they are ongoing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases, but the when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance is clear.

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