bulk_archive_to_history

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the behavior: iterating over every task, calling archive_to_history, moving tasks with reports, and auto-creating the history directory. This makes the operation transparent. It doesn't cover permissions or error handling, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 moderately sized but each section adds value: purpose, operation detail, use cases. It is front-loaded with the bold main action. Some minor redundancy (e.g., 'iterates every task... and calls archive_to_history for each one') is fine. It earns its length.

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 has only one optional parameter, an output schema (existence known but content provided by signals), and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it works, when to use, and the parameter. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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% (the one parameter done_date is described in the schema). The description adds no extra information beyond restating the schema's purpose. Per guidelines, with high coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 specifies the exact action: migrating all tasks from _lifecycle/archive/ to history/ with date sharding. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool archive_to_history by being a bulk operation, and the verb 'migrate' combined with the source/destination makes the purpose crystal clear.

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 provides explicit 'Useful when' scenarios (project upgrade or after manual archiving) that help the agent decide when to invoke this tool. It implicitly contrasts with the per-task archive_to_history. No explicit 'when not to use' but the scenarios are clear enough for a specialized migration tool.

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