linear_archiveInitiative

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Archive', which implies a state change, but does not explain whether the action is reversible (despite the existence of 'unarchiveInitiative'), what happens to associated projects or data, or any required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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 four words, which is not necessarily a virtue given the lack of context. It is front-loaded but misses critical information. Every word earns its place, but the description is under-informative, so it does not achieve a high score.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the effect of archiving (e.g., visibility, reversibility) or mention the existence of 'unarchiveInitiative'. The agent would need external knowledge or inference from sibling names to fully understand the tool's impact.

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 covers the single parameter with a clear description ('The ID of the initiative to archive'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning 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 'Archive an initiative' clearly states the verb (archive) and resource (initiative), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'deleteInitiative' or 'unarchiveInitiative', missing an opportunity to clarify what archiving entails (e.g., soft-delete vs hard 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deleteInitiative' or 'updateInitiative'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, side effects, or preferred use cases, leaving the agent to infer from tool names alone.

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