uselink_archive_project

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key non-destructive trait (documents accessible by URL) and the effect on listings, but leaves ambiguity about whether the project itself disappears from project listings and does not mention reversibility despite the sibling unarchive_project.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose and a clear behavioral effect. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior but leaves gaps: it does not fully clarify the project's own visibility status or whether the action is reversible. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, and the description does not explain that the required 'id' parameter identifies the project to archive. While the parameter's meaning is inferable from the tool name, the description adds no explicit semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Soft-archive a project' with a specific verb and resource, and explains the key distinction from deletion: documents remain accessible by URL. This differentiates it from sibling tools such as delete_document and unpublish_document.

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 the tool—when a project should be hidden from listings but remain accessible—and implies this is a non-destructive alternative. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like unarchive_project or state when not to use it.

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