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 only states the action and a precondition, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the original project is modified), whether the archive overwrites existing files, or any error conditions. This is insufficient for a tool that creates a file and may have destructive implications.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence adds a critical constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the parameter schema is complete, the description lacks essential context such as when to use this tool versus alternatives, what the archiving process entails, and any caveats beyond the open-project restriction. For a tool that creates an archive file, this minimal description is insufficient.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of all parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already states.

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 primary action: 'Archive a project to a .dra file.' It names the specific verb (archive), the resource (project), and the output format (.dra), which distinguishes it from siblings like project_save or project_restore_archive.

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 one key usage constraint: 'The project must NOT be currently open.' However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as project_export or project_save, nor does it state when this tool should be preferred. The guideline is implied but lacks explicit exclusion.

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