Archive Done TaskPaper Tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action but does not disclose behavioral details: whether the file is modified in-place, if the archive project is created automatically, if the operation is reversible, or what happens to the original task locations. For a modification tool, this is insufficient.

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?

One sentence, concise, and directly states the action. However, it could be restructured to front-load the most critical information, but the length is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 modifies a file, has no output schema, and no annotations. The description lacks details about return values (e.g., success message or number of tasks moved), side effects, and prerequisites. More context is needed for an agent to use it 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?

The input schema has 2 parameters, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the meaning of 'file' or 'archiveProject' beyond their names. For example, it does not specify that 'file' is the path or identifier of the TaskPaper file, nor that 'archiveProject' is the name of the project to move tasks into. The description adds no value over 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 clearly states the tool's action: moving done tasks from a TaskPaper file into an archive project. It uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('done tasks in a TaskPaper file'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like taskpaper_complete_task (which marks tasks done) and taskpaper_read_file (which reads).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies usage after tasks are marked done, but there is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or alternative tools for different scenarios.

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