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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the critical nuance that 'destructive' here means hidden from the board, that restore_card reverses it, and that there is no delete — materially changing how an agent should treat the side effect. It also instructs informing the user and states the return value.

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-loaded with the use condition, and each subsequent clause carries routing or behavioral value (alternatives, reversibility, bulk-exclusion, return). It is dense but slightly overpacked with prohibitions that could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states the return ('Returns the archived card'). Combined with explicit exclusions, preconditions, and reversibility, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The card id to archive'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format or sourcing detail for cardId beyond what the schema already says; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (archive a card) and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling behaviors an agent might confuse it with — move_card, update_card, restore_card, and deletion. An agent can select this tool without opening any schema.

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 triggering language ('done, finished, or no longer needed'), a pre-check (list_columns for a Done column), the alternative to use in that case (move_card), and three explicit when-not conditions. This is a full routing decision tree, not mere context.

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