archive_project

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

Discloses rich post-archive behavior far beyond the four boolean annotations: the project and tasks freeze, all change types are refused with `project_archived`, reads still work, and the sole exception is `unlink` of a link. Even the edge case of an open archived task blocking `blocked_by` tasks and holding its parent is spelled out. The description aligns with the annotations (state-changing, non-idempotent, non-destructive), so there is no contradiction.

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?

Three paragraphs of dense, correctly front-loaded information: purpose in the first sentence, then freeze semantics, the unlink exception, and failure modes. The length is justified by the genuinely complex archive behavior, though the `blocked_by`/parent-holding detail is quite deep. Nothing is redundant with the schema, and each section earns its place.

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?

Covers preconditions (main token), side effects (case entry), post-conditions (freeze and refusals), the unlink exception, reversibility via `restore_project`, and error codes — all without needing to explain return values since an output schema exists. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, with both `key` and `reason` already documented including error responses (`project_not_found`, `project_reason_required`) and the case-entry filing behavior. The description only restates that archiving is done 'with a reason', adding no meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Archives a project with a reason and files an `archived` entry in its case.' The freeze semantics and the refusal-until-`restore_project` behavior make the operation unmistakable and distinguish it from siblings like `restore_project` and `update_project`.

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?

Describes the effect and preconditions of use — only a `main` token may archive, and an already archived project is refused. It names `restore_project` as the undo path and notes that open tasks need no closing, which implicitly tells the agent not to pre-close tasks. It does not enumerate explicit when-not-to-use alternatives beyond the already-archived refusal, so it falls just short of a 5.

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