archive_task

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

With no annotations, the description provides moderate behavioral insight: it moves the task under a log directory and also moves any associated report. However, it does not mention prerequisites, reversibility, or side effects, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 two sentences, each adding value. The first sentence gives the primary action with a concrete path; the second covers the report handling. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core behavior (archiving task and report). Minor gaps exist (error states, permissions), but it is largely complete for an archive operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score 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 verb 'archive', the resource 'completed task', and the specific destination 'docs/agents/log/'. It also adds the nuance about moving the report file, which distinguishes it from siblings 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 description implies the task should be completed but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like archive_to_history or bulk_archive_to_history. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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