lb_projects_archive

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context by specifying it's a 'soft delete' and describing reactivation. This goes beyond the annotation, clarifying the nature of the destruction and reversibility.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides important reactivation context. No superfluous text, front-loaded with key information.

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 the simple input schema (one required parameter) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, how to undo it, and the parameter is clear from the schema. No gaps.

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 100% for the single parameter ui_id, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool archives (soft deletes) a project, distinguishing it from siblings like create, update, list, etc. The verb 'Archive' and resource 'Listing Bureau Amazon project' are specific and unambiguous.

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 reactivation guidance ('can be reactivated by creating a new project with the same ASIN+keyword+region'), which helps the agent understand post-archive behavior. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs other tools, but the context of sibling tools and the action 'archive' makes usage clear.

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