project_archive

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

The description adds value beyond the idempotentHint annotation by specifying what is retained during archiving. This informs the agent about side effects (no data loss).

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?

Single sentence, 13 words, no extraneous information. Efficiently conveys the core purpose and key behavioral trait.

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?

Covers purpose and retention, but lacks mention of reversibility (e.g., via project_unarchive) or any confirmation of success. The output schema might fill gaps, but it is not provided.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the projectId parameter. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description should confirm that projectId is the identifier of 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 clearly states the action ('Archive a project') and specifies what is retained ('database, memories, tasks, and audit history'), distinguishing it from destructive siblings like project_delete.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_delete or project_backup. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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