archive_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation (moving) and the behavioral effect (excluded from get_next_task). However, it does not discuss reversibility (though unarchive_task exists) or any permissions or side effects.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the key action, and contains no superfluous words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description adequately explains the purpose, effect, and state after archiving. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a sibling unarchive_task, it covers the essentials. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to explain return values for this mutation tool.

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 100%; both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 states the verb (archives), resource (task), and the effect (moving from todos to archive). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_task (deletion) and unarchive_task (reversal) by noting that archived tasks are preserved for history and excluded from get_next_task.

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 implies when to use (for completed tasks to keep queue focused) and mentions a precondition (task must have status 'done'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools beyond the sibling context.

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