Archive Task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the task is moved (a mutation), the target directory, and that any tied report file is moved alongside. However, it does not clarify side effects such as whether the task is removed from its original location, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the task is not actually completed.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary action and destination are front-loaded, and the secondary behavior about the report file is stated in one additional sentence.

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?

The description provides the essential action, destination, and important pairing behavior, and an output schema exists to cover return details. It is slightly incomplete only in that it does not address the relationship to archive-related sibling tools or specify prerequisites beyond 'completed task,' but for a simple move operation this is nearly sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their formats. The description adds contextual meaning about the report file being moved, but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides; this matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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?

States a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('a completed task'), and clearly specifies the destination (``docs/agents/log/``). It also adds the distinctive behavior of moving the associated report alongside, which helps differentiate from sibling archive tools like ``archive_to_history``.

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 'Archive a completed task' provides clear context that this is for completed tasks and names the destination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this tool versus sibling tools like ``archive_to_history`` or ``bulk_archive_to_history``, leaving the routing decision partly to inference.

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