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 explains the tool's behavior thoroughly: archived projects become read-only, disappear from listings, lose nothing, and are reversible. It also discloses the consequences of deletion (irreversible, takes issues/time entries/wiki content), adding rich context beyond the schema.

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 well-organized into concise paragraphs: purpose, behavioral notes, and arguments. Every sentence earns its place—the deletion contrast is relevant and useful, while the argument list is compact and readable. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with only two parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the operation does (archive/unarchive), side effects (read-only, hidden, reversible), and when not to use it (deletion). No additional behavioral details are necessary.

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 parameter descriptions are minimal: 'project_identifier' is only restated as 'project identifier,' adding no real meaning beyond the schema. However, 'archive' is clearly explained as 'True archives, False unarchives,' which compensates for the schema's default-only documentation. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially fills the gap but could have provided more detail on the identifier format.

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 or unarchive a project,' using a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with deletion, which is intentionally not exposed by this server, and by noting it is the reversible alternative to deletion.

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 guidance: use this tool to archive/unarchive reversibly, while deletion is a web UI operation. It clarifies that this server deliberately does not expose deletion, setting clear boundaries and preventing misuse.

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