linear_archiveProject

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., impact on related data, reversibility constraints) beyond the annotations. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description contributes nothing extra.

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, direct sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward action, though it is minimal to the point of lacking helpful context.

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 destructive operation with a single required parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any usage context (e.g., when to archive versus delete) and any description of the expected outcome, which could leave an agent uncertain about consequences.

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% with a single parameter (projectId) described as 'ID of the project to archive'. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage. No elaboration on format or constraints is provided.

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 ('Archive') and a resource ('project'), making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling archive tools like linear_archiveDocument or linear_archiveTeam, relying on the name for distinction.

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 (e.g., linear_unarchiveProject, linear_updateProject). The description simply states what it does without any context about prerequisites, side effects, or conditions for archiving.

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