epic_archive

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral effects: archived epics and their tasks drop out of listings, the dashboard, and search unless include_archived is set. It also confirms that no data is deleted, which complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and efficiently ordered: the core action comes first, followed by the observable side effects and the intended use case. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter tool with annotations covering idempotence and non-destructiveness, the description is nearly complete: it explains the action, the side effects on visibility, and the non-destructive nature. It does not describe expected return values or permissions, but with no output schema and a simple interface, this is not a significant gap.

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 documents the archived parameter clearly ('true to archive, false to bring it back'), and the description reinforces this with 'archive or unarchive.' However, the required id parameter has no schema description and the tool description does not explicitly explain that id refers to the epic identifier, leaving a minor gap at 50% schema 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 uses a specific verb and resource pair, 'archive or unarchive an epic,' and clearly explains the state change. It also distinguishes the operation from deletion by stating 'nothing is deleted,' which removes ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 a clear use case: putting finished work out of sight without cancelling it, which implies it should be used instead of destructive deletion or a regular update. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to make the right call.

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