Archive a Linear issue

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description adds the valuable context that archiving is reversible in Linear, which softens the destructive hint and clarifies the state change. It does not fully detail all effects, but it goes beyond the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and includes a useful qualifier about reversibility, making it efficient and scannable.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is largely complete. It adds the key reversible context and does not need to explain return values since there is no output schema. It could mention the archive state effect more explicitly, but the complexity is low.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the 'id' parameter. However, with only one required string parameter and the tool name/description referencing 'issue', an agent can reasonably infer that 'id' is the Linear issue identifier. The description adds little beyond the schema but is not misleading.

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 uses a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('an issue'), and the parenthetical 'reversible in Linear' distinguishes it from permanent deletion tools like linear_delete_issue. It clearly communicates what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 implies when to use the tool: when an issue should be archived rather than permanently deleted. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the routing to inference from the sibling tool names.

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