archive_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and excels: it discloses cascading hide to subtasks, automatic unpinning, WBS unsupported, parent-blocked unhide, the confirm gate requiring confirm=True to execute, and idempotent no-op behavior. This is exceptionally transparent.

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?

While lengthy, every sentence contributes essential operational detail, and the use of bold headers and paragraphs structures the information effectively. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it as concise as the complexity demands.

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 covers all notable behaviors: idempotency, confirmation workflow, side effects on subtasks and pins, project restrictions, and edge cases like parent-blocked unhide. Even with an output schema present, it explains the confirm=False preview workflow, leaving no critical gaps for an AI 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the raw schema by explaining that task_id accepts either an integer ID or a string title resolved via search in the current project, that archived sets the target state, and that confirm controls preview vs. execution. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool hides or unhides a task by setting archived=True or archived=False, and describes itself as an idempotent wrapper around a toggle API. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_task or restore_task, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives concrete usage context: it mentions that WBS projects do not support hiding, that unhide is blocked if the parent is hidden, and that it works by toggling the archived state. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but effectively communicates when this tool is and isn't applicable.

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