tasks_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Archive (delete)' implies a destructive mutation, which is helpful, but it doesn't specify whether this is permanent deletion vs soft deletion, permission requirements, side effects, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the essential action. There's zero wasted language, and every word earns its place by clarifying that 'archive' means 'delete' in this context.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It should explain what 'archive' means operationally, whether it's reversible, what permissions are needed, and what the response contains. The current description leaves too many critical questions unanswered.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single parameter 'taskId' is undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, providing no additional semantic information beyond what's implied by the tool name. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher than for multi-parameter tools with poor coverage.

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 'Archive (delete) a task' clearly states the verb (archive/delete) and resource (task), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tasks_update or tasks_get by specifying the destructive action. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from tasks_batch_archive, which handles multiple tasks.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), when to use batch_archive instead for multiple tasks, or whether archiving is reversible. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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