archive_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is deleted, that the operation is reversible, that visibility changes in list_projects, and that ownership is required. It omits permission/error behavior for non-owned or nonexistent projects, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the boolean semantics immediately parenthesized. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 2-param mutation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential effect, reversibility, and ownership. Missing edge-case behavior (invalid projectId, non-owned projects) is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 compensate. It fully explains the required 'archived' boolean (true=archive, false=unarchive), but adds nothing about 'projectId' beyond its self-evident name, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 (archive/unarchive) and resource (project), and clarifies the boolean's two directions inline. It also positions itself against siblings by naming list_projects (whose output it affects) and delete (its destructive counterpart).

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?

Explains the effect of using it — hidden from list_projects — and frames it as the reversible alternative to delete, which is a usable selection cue. It states the ownership prerequisite ('a project you own') but stops short of explicit when-not conditions or naming the exact delete sibling to prefer.

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