jira_version_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (YAML `{status: ok}`) but does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, permissions required, or what archiving actually changes in JIRA. The mirrored CLI command adds context but not behavioral detail.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return format, and CLI mirror. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no redundant verbiage.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the return format and input source. However, it lacks behavioral context about what archiving entails (e.g., whether it is reversible, what status it sets), which leaves the description slightly incomplete for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the description reinforces the schema by noting the ID comes from `jira_version_list`. No additional semantics are provided beyond the schema, 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 action ('Archive') and the resource ('JIRA project version'), and it specifies the input source (`version_id` from `jira_version_list`). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like `jira_version_release` or `jira_version_delete`.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., release, rename, delete). The only hint is the reference to `jira_version_list` for obtaining the ID, but no context is provided for choosing archive over other version operations.

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