linear_archiveProject

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description merely repeats the action ('Archive a project') without adding any behavioral details such as reversibility, impact on related entities, or required permissions. It fails to provide value beyond the annotations.

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 (three words), but this brevity comes at the expense of useful information. While it avoids verbosity, it does not fully leverage the space to provide context, making it minimally adequate.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description is marginally complete. However, for a destructive action like archiving, additional context about side effects (e.g., what happens to project issues) would be beneficial. The description satisfies the bare minimum.

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% for the single parameter 'projectId'. The description does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond the schema's own description ('ID of the project to archive'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 a project' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action and target. Among sibling tools, it is unambiguously distinct from other archive operations like 'linear_archiveRoadmap' or 'linear_archiveMilestone'.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences of archiving, or when not to use it. The description simply states the action without any usage context.

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