todo_archive

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, readOnlyHint) by disclosing the visibility side effect: archived todos drop out of todo_list by default while todo_get still reaches them by id. It also states a hard precondition that causes refusal, which isn't derivable from the structured fields.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the primary action and then the effects and refusal rule. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation's effect, visibility semantics, and failure precondition. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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 coverage is 67% and both non-trivial parameters (archived, project_id) already carry their own descriptions. The description only restates the archived=false unarchive behavior and adds no syntax or constraint detail for project_id or todo_id, so it does little 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Archive a todo') and immediately covers the inverse operation ('unarchive with archived=false'), which an agent can act on without opening the schema. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing pad_archive, todo_list, and todo_get.

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?

Gives clear context for both modes of use and names the refusal precondition (todo still blocks an incomplete todo), which tells the agent when the call will fail. It stops short of naming an alternative for the delete-vs-archive decision, so it is not fully explicit about alternatives.

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