linear_archiveInitiativeUpdate

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, indicating a safe-to-rearchive destructive action. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., reversibility, visibility changes). While consistent with annotations, it fails to clarify operational nuances beyond what the annotations provide.

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 a single short sentence with no extraneous information. It is efficient but could benefit from a brief note on the effect of archiving. Nevertheless, it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 tool's simplicity (one param, output schema exists) and annotations providing safety traits, the description is partially complete. However, it omits what happens to the archived update (e.g., hidden vs deleted, ability to unarchive) which a sufficiently intelligent agent might need to know. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the overall behavioral context remains thin.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter (id) with the description 'ID of the initiative update to archive'. With 100% schema description coverage, the tool description adds no additional value for parameter semantics. 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 update' clearly states the verb (archive) and resource (initiative update). It distinguishes from sibling tools like linear_archiveInitiative and linear_archiveProjectUpdate due to the specific resource name. However, it does not elaborate on what archiving entails (e.g., hiding vs deleting), but the core purpose is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as linear_archiveProjectUpdate or linear_archiveInitiative. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and context, which increases selection risk.

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