workflow_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Does not delete project files', directly addressing a likely safety concern, and implies a state change from active to archived. It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but the key non-destructive behavior is disclosed.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action and purpose are front-loaded, and the clarifying negative statement is separated cleanly.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: an agent knows what to act on, why, and a critical non-effect. The main gap is that the description does not explicitly tie taskId to the terminal record, nor does it state whether archiving is reversible.

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 only parameter, taskId, is not mentioned in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining where the ID comes from or what it identifies, but it only refers to 'an accepted terminal record' without linking that concept to taskId. The parameter name and regex carry nearly all the semantic weight.

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 states a specific verb and object: 'Archive an accepted terminal record', and gives the intended outcome: 'to release active inbox capacity'. The qualifier 'accepted' clarifies the target state, and no sibling tool covers archiving, so it is readily distinguishable.

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?

It gives clear context: this tool is for accepted terminal records and is appropriate when active inbox capacity needs to be freed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but for an archive operation the context is sufficient for an agent to select it.

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