archive_project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful post-state context: archived projects become read-only and are removed from the project overview. It does not mention reversibility (that unarchive_project exists) or permission requirements, but the added behavioral detail is meaningful.

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 first two sentences are near-duplicates ('Archive a project.' / 'Archive a project using its unique identifier.'), which wastes space. The substantive effect statement is last rather than front-loaded, so structure is adequate but not tight.

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 single-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential outcome of the call. The main missing piece is recoverability (that unarchive_project can reverse it) and whether archiving cascades to child entities.

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 reported as 0%, but the only parameter is a nested path.projectId whose schema description ('The project identifier.') is self-evident. The description's 'using its unique identifier' adds little beyond the schema and gives no format or ID-source hints, so it neither compensates nor misleads.

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 (archive) and resource (project), and the effect is clear. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like unarchive_project or delete_project, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 when-to-use guidance is given: nothing explains when archiving is preferable to deleting, or when unarchive_project applies. The description only says what archiving does, not when an agent should choose this tool.

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