archive_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that archived projects are hidden from list_projects and that nothing is deleted, implying reversibility via unarchive. However, it omits permissions, effects on related records such as stories or requirements, and error or return behavior.

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 three short sentences with no wasted wording. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the key visibility and non-destructive behavior.

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 low-complexity mutation, the description covers the core purpose, visibility side effect, and non-destructive nature. But with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, it leaves out invocation-critical details such as the default for archived and the meaning of projectId.

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% for two parameters, so the description should compensate. It does not name projectId or archived, explain that archived defaults to true, or clarify how the boolean selects archive versus unarchive; only the general action is implied.

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 states a specific verb and resource: archive or unarchive a project. It also distinguishes the operation from deletion by saying 'Nothing is deleted' and clarifies its effect on list_projects, which helps differentiate it from siblings like delete_project and update_project.

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?

It gives clear context for use: hiding or unhiding a project without deleting it, and notes that archived projects are hidden from list_projects by default. It implies an alternative to delete_project, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list prerequisites.

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