Archive a workspace, hiding it from the default list (project admin/owner).

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false (modifying action) and destructiveHint=false (likely not destructive). The description only says 'hiding from the default list', implying reversibility but does not elaborate on side effects, such as whether associated orders or items are affected, or if archiving can be undone via another tool. Without annotation coverage, more detail is needed.

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 a single sentence that repeats the title and adds minimal context. It is concise but lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections). It could be more informative without being lengthy.

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 lack of parameter documentation, minimal annotations, and no description of the output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what happens after archiving, how to verify the archive, or related dependencies. Additional context would improve completeness.

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 0%; the description provides no explanation of any of the five parameters (x-api-key, description, is_archived, name, project_id). For example, 'is_archived' is not explained, and the tool name implies archiving, but the parameter's role is unclear. The description adds no value beyond the schema structure.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 mentions the user role context but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., projects.update for changing archived status, or projects.delete for permanent removal). There is no when-not-to-use information.

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