archive_task

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

Annotations already carry the core safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait — reversibility — that reinforces why this is safe to invoke. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could disclose more about side effects (e.g., whether archived tasks disappear from list_tasks).

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?

One tight 11-word sentence with two clauses: the action is front-loaded first, followed by positioning context. There is zero filler, and both clauses earn their place — the first states what it does, the second tells the agent why it exists.

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 low-complexity tool (2 params, no nesting, output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile), the description is nearly complete. Minor gaps remain: no mention of how archiving interacts with task states, subtasks, or list visibility, and no behavior on nonexistent task_ids — but these are acceptable omissions given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and the 'Archive or unarchive' phrasing effectively documents the semantic effect of the `archived` boolean (true=archive, false=unarchive). task_id's meaning is self-evident from context. It does not explicitly map parameter names to behaviors, but the dual-verb construction carries the essential meaning.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair ('Archive or unarchive a task') that captures both modes of the tool via the boolean parameter. It also differentiates itself from the sibling delete_task by positioning archiving as the reversible alternative, so an agent can distinguish this from deletion without opening any schemas.

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 phrase 'preferred reversible alternative to deletion' gives explicit routing guidance away from delete_task, which is the most confusable sibling. However, it does not address potential overlap with set_task_state or update_task, which could also plausibly manage a task's archival state in some systems.

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