admin_archive_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation (sets archived_at), idempotency (no-op when already archived), scope (single project, independent of siblings), and authorization requirement (platform-admin). No contradictions.

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 efficient sentences: the first states the action, effect, and scope; the second covers idempotency and auth. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema and two parameters, the description sufficiently covers behavior, idempotency, scope, auth, and the reason parameter's purpose. It is complete for a straightforward mutation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it reiterates the platform-admin constraint for project_id and clarifies that the reason parameter is recorded in the audit log and recommended. This helps the agent understand parameter intent.

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 verb ('archive'), the resource ('a single project'), and specifies the effect ('sets `projects.archived_at = NOW()`'). It distinguishes from siblings by noting independence from account-level lifecycle and no-op behavior when already archived.

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?

Explicitly states 'Platform-admin only' and frames it as an 'operator moderation action', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (like admin_reactivate_project) or state when not to use this tool.

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