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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that archived tasks leave the board but retain refs and history, that search still finds them, that open work is never touched, and that the operation requires permission. This meaningfully frames the destructiveHint=false annotation as a genuinely reversible operation rather than contradicting it.

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?

Front-loads the core action and stays information-dense, but runs to five clauses and could be trimmed slightly. Every sentence nevertheless carries distinct, useful content (scope, reversibility, safety, precondition).

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the filtering modes, the side effects on the board and search, the reversal path, the dry-run precondition, and permission needs. An agent has everything required to call it safely.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by spelling out the OR-like selection semantics ('every Completed task, or only those not changed for olderThanDays, of one project, or the refs given') that the schema does not make explicit about how filters combine.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'archive every Completed task,' with scope qualifiers (olderThanDays, one project, refs). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutation tools like fenbs_delete_item or fenbs_update_item, which the description explicitly references as the reversal path.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Archive only when the person you work for asks'), a mandatory precondition ('run with dryRun true first and tell them how many would go'), and names the sibling that reverses it ('fenbs_update_item archived false puts one back'). Nothing is left to inference.

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