archive task

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

The description directly contradicts the annotations: it states 'It can be unarchived' (implying reversibility) while annotations mark destructiveHint=true. This is a clear contradiction, and the description fails to disclose any other behavioral traits beyond the schema, making transparency poor.

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, focused sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately adds a clarification, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers the main action and reversibility, but this is undermined by the annotation contradiction. It does not explain what archival means in the system, nor what the outcome will be (e.g., whether the task disappears from lists). Given no output schema, some additional context would improve completeness.

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 compensate, but it never mentions the only parameter, task_id. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning or context about how to supply it or what values are valid, failing low-coverage requirements.

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 action (archive) and the object (this Task), explicitly differentiating it from completing the task. The phrase 'without completing it' directly contrasts with the sibling tool complete_task, and 'It can be unarchived' distinguishes it from destructive actions like trash or delete.

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 usage context: use this when you want to archive (not complete) a task, and it tells the agent the action is reversible. While it does not explicitly name alternatives like unarchive_task or complete_task, the 'without completing it' exclusion and reversibility note give practical guidance.

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