tasks_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool archives/deletes a task, which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if archiving is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated data, or what the response looks like. The parenthetical '(delete)' suggests permanent removal but lacks confirmation.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the parameter, behavioral implications, return values, or how it differs from sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without additional context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'taskId' parameter at all, leaving the single required parameter completely undocumented. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description adds no value beyond what's obvious from the tool name, so it scores lower.

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 'Archive (delete) a task' clearly states the verb (archive/delete) and resource (task), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'tasks_batch_archive' which likely archives multiple tasks, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tasks_batch_archive' for multiple tasks or 'tasks_update' for modifying instead of archiving. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions needed, or consequences of archiving versus other operations.

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