admin_archive_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation (archiving sets timestamp), idempotency, scope (single project, siblings unaffected), required role (platform-admin), and the API endpoint. It does not mention potential side effects like notifications or whether the action is reversible, but the sibling tool suggests reversibility.

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 four sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence covers an essential aspect: action and effect, scope, idempotency, and role/endpoint. It is front-loaded and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains the operational effect, scoping, idempotency, and authentication requirements without needing to reference return values.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema for project_id by restating the effect and scope, and the reason parameter is already well-described in the schema as an audit log entry.

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 identifies the action as archiving a single project, specifies the database effect (sets `projects.archived_at = NOW()`), and differentiates from sibling tools like admin_reactivate_project by stating it is an operator moderation action that takes only one project down while siblings keep serving.

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 clear context: it is a platform-admin-only action, independent of organization lifecycle, and idempotent (no-op if already archived). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling tools list includes the reverse action admin_reactivate_project, implying its use case.

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