Archive a roadmap in Linear to remove it from active use while retaining its data and history.
Archive a roadmap
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roadmapId | Yes | The ID of the roadmap to archive |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roadmap | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as destructive and idempotent; the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'archive.' It does not explain whether the roadmap is hidden from lists, irreversible, or how duplicate archives are handled, and there is no annotation contradiction.
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 three words with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and object. It is the minimal concise form appropriate for a one-parameter archive operation.
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 tool is simple and structured data covers the parameter, output schema, and safety hints, but the description alone leaves the real-world effect of 'archive' unspecified. An agent would benefit from knowing that archived roadmaps are typically hidden and restorable via linear_unarchiveRoadmap; that context is absent.
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 single parameter roadmapId is fully documented in the schema, so the description need not add much. It provides no additional guidance (e.g., where to find the ID), but the schema already supplies the meaning, matching the 100% coverage baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('a roadmap'), unambiguously identifying the operation. It distinguishes cleanly from sibling tools like linear_getRoadmaps, linear_updateRoadmap, and linear_unarchiveRoadmap by naming the exact action and object.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that archived roadmaps can be restored with linear_unarchiveRoadmap or contrast with linear_updateRoadmap, so an agent is left to infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.