todo_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the unarchive capability, the effect on todo_list (excluded by default), that todo_get can still reach it, and the refusal condition for blocking uncompleted todos. This is substantial behavioral context, though it doesn't cover permissions or error handling.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The action is stated upfront, followed by key behavioral notes and a refusal condition. Every clause earns its place, making it highly concise and readable.

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 three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: archiving, unarchiving, list exclusion, retrieval by id, and the blocking condition. It doesn't address authentication or other environmental factors, but these are likely covered by the context of the todo system. Given the output schema exists, return values are presumably documented, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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% (archived and project_id have descriptions, but todo_id does not). The description does not add detail for todo_id beyond implying it identifies the todo. It repeats the archived=false option already in the schema, adding no new semantic value. The missing todo_id description is not compensated.

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: archive or unarchive a todo, with the archived flag. It also provides behavioral context by noting archived todos are excluded from todo_list and still accessible via todo_get. While it references pad_archive as a mirror, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other todo tools, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 (to archive/unarchive) and mentions the refusal condition when blocking a non-completed todo, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives. Since there is no direct sibling for archiving, the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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