sp_archive_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Archive', and omits whether the operation is reversible, what state changes occur, whether the task remains viewable, or any return value.

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 one concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is narrowly scoped and front-loaded, though it still lacks contextual guidance that would make it a more complete definition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It doesn't clarify the effects of archiving, how success or failure is conveyed, or how the `id` parameter is consumed beyond schema-level identification.

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 already documents the single parameter `id` with 'Task id', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about the id's origin, format, or behavior if invalid, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Archive') and the resource ('a Super Productivity task'), which is distinct from sibling tools like delete_task and restore_task. It doesn't describe the effect of archiving, so it falls short of maximum clarity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sp_delete_task or sp_restore_task. There is no mention of whether archiving is meant to non-destructively hide tasks or what conditions favor this action.

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