archive_task_list

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

The description adds context about reversibility, which is not fully captured by annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It reassures the agent that the action is not permanent, complementing the annotations.

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 succinct sentences, with the first stating the primary action and the second providing important context about reversibility. No extraneous words, front-loaded with the key purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough. It explains the core function and reversibility, which are the only critical behavioral aspects.

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 has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter 'task_list_id'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 action ('Archive') and the resource ('task list'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'restore_task_list' by mentioning reversibility and suggesting the undo tool.

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?

It explicitly says 'This is reversible — use restore_task_list to undo,' giving clear guidance on when to use the undo tool. However, it does not state when not to use this tool, though context implies it should be used for archiving, not deleting.

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