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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds context the annotations cannot: the board disappears from everyone's dashboards (multi-user impact), the data survives until restored (partial reversibility), the user must own the board, and it doesn't count against the free-plan cap. It does not say who can restore it or whether the action can be undone in-app.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core effect (leaves dashboards, data retained) is front-loaded before the secondary plan-limit detail.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the user-visible consequences: dashboard removal for all members, data retention, ownership requirement, and plan implications. Only the boardId format and the restore path are left implicit, which are minor for this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0% and the sole parameter boardId gets no mention or format guidance in the description. The parameter is largely self-evident by name, so the description neither compensates for nor worsens the gap; a baseline 3 is appropriate for a single obvious identifier.

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 (archives) and resource (a board), plus the ownership precondition. The clause 'keeps all its data until it is restored' implicitly separates it from delete_board and points at restore_board, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening their schemas.

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 clear context for when this is the right action: you want the board off everyone's dashboard but not gone, and archiving has a plan-limit benefit. It never explicitly names restore_board as the undo path or states when archiving would be wrong, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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