linear_archiveProjectUpdate

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

While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not explain what archiving entails (e.g., reversible, hides from views) or mention any side effects beyond what 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, efficient sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and concise, earning a perfect score for brevity.

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 that annotations and output schema exist, the description covers the essential action. However, it lacks completeness by not mentioning that the project update must exist, what happens on success, or any resulting state changes, which would be helpful for a simple operation.

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 has 100% coverage with a description for the single required parameter 'id' ('ID of the project update to archive'). The description does not add semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 Linear project update' uses a specific verb ('archive') and clearly identifies the resource ('project update'). It is distinct from sibling tools like unarchiveProjectUpdate or deleteProjectUpdate, making purpose unambiguous.

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 unarchiveProjectUpdate or deleteProjectUpdate. No context is given about prerequisites or decision criteria, leaving the agent without direction.

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