archive_assignment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions permission requirements but does not disclose the consequences of archiving, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. This is a meaningful gap for a state-changing operation.

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: two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the permission requirement is the only additional context provided, earning its place.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is minimal. Critical details such as the meaning of confirm_assignment_id, the effect of archiving, and the relationship to unarchive_assignment are absent. The description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. In particular, the required confirm_assignment_id parameter is not described at all, leaving the agent to guess whether it must match assignment_id or serve some other confirmation purpose.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Archive an assignment.' This is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling unarchive_assignment, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 a permission prerequisite but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unarchive_assignment, change_assignment_status, or downsize_assignment. It provides context but no decision support.

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