archive_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is reversible, which is important context, but it does not disclose potential side effects such as how archiving affects tasks, timers, or member access, nor does it mention any permission requirements. This is a moderate gap given the mutation nature of the tool.

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, efficient sentence that conveys both the primary action and the reversibility without any fluff or redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately useful for an agent.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does and that it is reversible. It does not explain edge cases like behavior with active subtasks or permissions, but for straightforward archiving this is sufficient. It slightly holds back from a 5 by not mentioning any prerequisites or broader impact.

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 description provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter `project_id` with its own description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, but since an integer ID is self-explanatory and the schema already documents it, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Close a project and move it to the archive.' It identifies a specific verb ('close') and resource ('project'), and the mention of reversibility with activate_project differentiates it from its sibling activate_project. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from other project-related tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to close and archive a project) and explicitly names the alternative for reversing the action (activate_project). While it does not list exclusions (e.g., when not to use it), the single clear scenario and the reverse-tool reference give an agent sufficient guidance for selection.

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