manage_work_item_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the state restriction and visibility effect, which is useful, but omits other behavioral aspects such as permissions, reversibility of unarchive, error conditions, or return values. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by conditions and argument details. Every sentence contributes value without 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?

For a toggle operation, it covers the main purpose, prerequisite state, and listing effect. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details on success/error responses, permission requirements, and any side effects on related items. These gaps make it only minimally complete.

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 description must explain all parameters. It does so clearly: 'project_id: UUID of the project', 'work_item_id: UUID of the work item', and 'archive: True to archive the work item, False to unarchive it.' This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 'Archive or unarchive a work item' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_archived_work_items' and 'manage_cycle_archive' by focusing on toggling archive state for a single work item.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Only work items in a completed or cancelled state can be archived' and explains the consequence 'Archived work items no longer appear in active work item lists.' It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the conditions for use are clear.

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