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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description complements by explaining the default behavior (returns to original column or Inbox), the optional toColumnId, and the rejection of move_card on archived cards. It clearly describes the operation's effect and edge cases, going beyond the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, then essential steps, alternatives, and edge cases. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 clear annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, how to find input, default behavior, optional parameter, and a critical warning about move_card. Comprehensive and sufficient for an agent to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the default for toColumnId and the source of cardId from search_cards, but the schema already covers the basics. Hence, a 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 specific verb and resource: 'restore' an 'archived card' to the board. It includes trigger phrases and clearly distinguishes from move_card by stating it is rejected for archived cards.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (archived card back on board), how to find the card (search_cards with includeArchived=true), and warns against using move_card on archived cards. Mentions alternative tools like search_cards and move_card.

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