aiworkhub_dashboard_task_archive

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden and does so: mutation semantics (archive, not delete, evidence retained), a confirm=True gate, refusal on processing/review tasks, side effects (sets archived_at, writes an audit event), and downstream impact (invalidates storage telemetry). That is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before a write.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the write marker and the core action, and every clause carries distinct information. The second sentence is long and chains four separate traits, which could be bulleted, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description covers purpose, prerequisites, refusals, state changes, and sibling routing. For a single-entity mutation with three fully documented params, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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%, so task_id, confirm, and reason are already documented in the schema, and the description's 'Requires confirm=True' duplicates that. The optional reason audit note is not mentioned in the description, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (archive) and resource (one non-active task card) in a named store, plus a scope qualifier ('without deleting its evidence'). The 'USER WRITE' prefix and 'non-active' constraint let an agent distinguish it from aiworkhub_task_archive and the manager/dashboard restore siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('hide a finished, blocked, pending, or superseded task from the active queue') plus named alternatives with their conditions: task_restore for unarchiving and task_quarantine for aged archived tasks. It also states an exclusion ('refuses processing or review tasks'), covering when-not.

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