archiveProject

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false indicates a mutation, and the description 'Archive project' implies a state change. However, it does not disclose any behavioral details such as whether archiving is reversible, what side effects occur (e.g., hiding the project, freezing changes), or what the response includes. The description adds no information beyond the annotation.

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 extremely terse—two words—which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks any structure or front-loading of key information. While it is not verbose, it fails to earn its place by providing any useful detail.

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 tool with a nested input schema, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is wholly inadequate. It provides no information about the expected format, the meaning of projectId, the response structure, or any side effects. An agent cannot make an informed decision to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The inputs (format, projectId) are undocumented in the text. The description conveys nothing about how format affects the response or what projectId refers to, leaving the agent without essential parameter semantics.

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 'Archive project' restates the tool name without adding any detail. It identifies the verb 'archive' and resource 'project' but does not differentiate from sibling tools like unarchiveProject, closeProject, or deleteProject. The purpose is minimally clear but lacks substance beyond the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or how it relates to alternatives. The description offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios that would favor this tool over sibling operations like unarchiveProject or closeProject.

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