sprrint_projects_archive

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. 'Archive a project' is a label rather than a behavioral account: it does not disclose whether archiving is reversible, whether it affects tasks or members, or what side effects may occur.

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 brief and front-loaded, which makes it easy to scan. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, and it lacks any structure beyond a short verb phrase.

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 an action with one required parameter and no annotations or output schema, this description is too incomplete. It omits the meaning of archiving, any reversibility or permanence details, and the relationship to related tools like delete and restore.

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 schema has one required string parameter, 'project,' but the schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate. It does not explain whether the value should be a project ID, slug, or name, or how the parameter identifies the project to archive.

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 states a specific action, 'Archive a project,' with a clear verb and resource, so an agent can grasp the basic intent. However, it does not clarify how archiving differs from deleting or restoring a project, which limits full sibling differentiation.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description never says when to use archive versus delete or restore, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternative selection criteria. An agent must infer the intended use solely from the tool name.

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