manage_project_archive

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 clearly states that archived projects are hidden but not deleted, and that all work items, cycles, and modules are preserved, giving important non-destructive context. It lacks explicit details on permissions or reversal effects, but for a simple toggle operation this is sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by key behavioral notes and an Args section that maps directly to the schema parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 that this is a simple two-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, what the parameters mean, and the non-destructive side effects. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 schema provides only types and required flags with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining project_id as 'UUID of the project' and archive as 'True to archive, False to unarchive', adding complete semantic meaning beyond 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 states 'Archive or unarchive a project' which clearly identifies a specific action (toggle archive status) on a specific resource (project). This distinguishes it from sibling archive tools like manage_cycle_archive or manage_work_item_archive by explicitly naming the project as the target.

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 for when to use this tool: when you want to archive or unarchive a project. It explains the effect (hidden from active lists, preserves data), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions such as 'use this instead of managing work item archives separately'. Still, the use case is obvious.

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