tasks_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a destructive operation ('delete'), which is helpful, but doesn't clarify whether archiving is permanent/reversible, what happens to associated data, if permissions are required, or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted text or redundancy. The parenthetical clarification of 'delete' adds valuable context efficiently.

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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It identifies the action but doesn't cover behavioral implications, parameter guidance, or result expectations. Compared to sibling tools in the same domain (like tasks_batch_archive), this leaves the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the single parameter 'taskId' is undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention this parameter at all, providing no guidance on format, source, or constraints. However, with only one required parameter and the tool name implying its purpose, the baseline is appropriate despite the lack of parameter information.

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 action ('archive (delete)') and resource ('a task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tasks_batch_archive' or explain what 'archive' means in this context, but the verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tasks_batch_archive' or 'tasks_update' to mark a task as completed instead of archived. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or consequences of archiving, leaving the agent without contextual usage information.

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