linear_archiveManagedOAuthApplication

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveness and idempotency. The description adds key context: the ownership requirement ('owned by the calling OAuth application') and what the tool does not do ('does not revoke an unrelated authorized application'), surpassing annotation content.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description lacks details about reversibility (e.g., can it be unarchived?) and what happens to the app's own tokens. These gaps reduce completeness for a destructive tool.

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 schema has 0% coverage for the sole parameter 'id'. The description compensates by clarifying that the ID must be an alpha child OAuth application owned by the caller, adding meaningful ownership and type constraints beyond the schema.

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 states the specific action (archive), resource (alpha child OAuth application), and ownership constraint. It distinguishes from other archive tools with the resource type and includes a clarifying note about not revoking unrelated authorized applications.

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 usage for archiving a managed OAuth application, but does not explicitly guide when to use this over alternatives like updating or deleting. It provides no direct comparison with sibling tools.

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