archiveProject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only states the action 'Archive project' without explaining side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.

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 extremely short (two words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not earn its place because it adds no value beyond the name, and the minimal structure fails to provide necessary context.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and the presence of a nested parameter object, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, effects on project data, or how it relates to sibling tools like unarchiveProject, leaving the agent without essential context.

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 input schema includes a nested object with 'format' (enum json/xml) and 'projectId', but the description mentions neither parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning to the schema, leaving 'format' ambiguous and the purpose of the nested structure unclear.

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 'Archive project' is essentially a human-readable restatement of the tool name 'archiveProject', providing no additional detail about the action's scope or effect. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like closeProject or unarchiveProject, making it tautological rather than informative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as closeProject, reopenProject, or unarchiveProject. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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