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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description reinforces the non-destructive nature ('without deleting it'), which adds real value, but it says nothing about reversibility, whether data/tasks are retained, or what happens if the board is already archived — notable given idempotentHint=false.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the intent and ending with the key constraint. Zero filler.

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 mutation with annotations covering the safety profile, the description gives enough to act correctly. Remaining gaps — reversibility and already-archived behavior — are minor but real for a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Board ID to archive'), so the schema fully documents it. The tool description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 the concrete effect of the operation (hiding a board from active workflows) and implicitly contrasts it with deletion, which is more informative than restating the name. It never explicitly uses the verb 'archive' or names a board identifier, but the name and title carry that. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like delete_task or update_board.

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 phrase 'without deleting it' implies the when-to-use condition relative to destructive alternatives, but no sibling (restore_board, update_board, move_board) is named and there are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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