tasks_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a WRITE operation and requires confirm=true, and points to a dry run for safety. However, it does not explain consequences (e.g., what happens to tasks, reversibility, side effects) or the effect of confirm=false beyond 'returns a hint.' This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and safety requirements. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 7-parameter schema which covers all inputs, the description provides the essential purpose and critical workflow (dry-run first). While it does not explain return values or delve into edge cases, the combination of schema and description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios. It could be more complete by contrasting with tasks_complete, but the dry-run pointer mitigates that gap.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description only adds that confirm=true is mandatory, but that is already stated in the schema's confirm parameter. There is no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'переместить завершённые задачи в финальную стадию канбана' (move completed tasks to the final kanban stage), which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing the dry-run variant, making its role unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly instructs to first use tasks_archive_dry_run, providing a clear workflow context. It also notes that confirm=true is required, which is an important invocation requirement. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like tasks_complete or tasks_update, so it falls short of a full when/when-not matrix.

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