archive project

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds valuable context that the action is not permanent ('can be restored') and hides the project from active views. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the reversible nature of the operation, without contradicting them.

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 two short sentences that immediately state the action and its consequence. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains the operation and its effect. It conveys both the immediate action and the reversibility, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description does not mention the project_id parameter at all, and the schema description coverage is 0%. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to explain how to identify the project or that a valid ID must be passed, providing no added 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 uses the specific verb 'Archive' with the resource 'Project', clearly stating the action and its effect: 'It disappears from active views but can be restored.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_project (permanent) and archive_task (different resource).

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: to hide a project from active views while retaining the ability to restore it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name them, but the 'can be restored' phrase differentiates from deletion, giving a clear implication of use cases.

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