archive_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that archiving is non-destructive ('kept, not deleted'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other important aspects such as reversibility or effects on associated tasks.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and adds a clarifying note. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and contains no fluff.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. The description covers the essential action and non-destructive nature, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. However, slightly more detail on effects could push it higher.

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 schema provides no description for the 'name' parameter (0% coverage), and the description does not compensate by explaining what 'name' refers to or any constraints (e.g., exact match, uniqueness). Since the parameter is not self-explanatory in the absence of context, the description falls short.

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 uses a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('project'), and clarifies that it is 'kept, not deleted', which distinguishes it from a delete operation. This clearly states what the tool does.

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 usage context ('archive' suggests removing from active use) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention any alternative tools for achieving similar outcomes.

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