Archive a project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the crucial behavioral context the annotations cannot: what actually gets destroyed (query checking stops), the visibility consequence (removed from project list), and reversibility via restore_project. The confirmationToken requirement is a non-obvious gate for a destructive op.

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?

Front-loads purpose and consequences, then the required workflow. Two dense sentences with no filler; every clause conveys actionable 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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema and no annotation detail on effects, the description covers the full picture: what happens, the escape hatch (restore_project), and the mandatory confirmation flow. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains confirmationToken thoroughly, including how to obtain it, but projectId, organizationId, and requestId get no explanation beyond their self-evident names. Partial compensation warrants a moderate score.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Archive a project') and enumerates concrete effects: tracked queries stop being checked and the project leaves the project list. It also names the sibling restore_project, so an agent can distinguish it from the inverse operation without opening either schema.

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?

Provides an explicit precondition workflow: call preview_operation with tool 'archive_project' and these args, show the plan to the user, and only proceed after explicit agreement. This leaves nothing to inference about when and how to invoke it.

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