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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing all-or-nothing semantics ('fails without moving anything'), the shape of the error for non-archived tokens, the workspace asset-limit precondition, and the read-only destination constraint — all actionable for an agent planning a retry. It does not address whether the move is reversible or what the response reports, which are the remaining gaps against destructiveHint: true.

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 action and the key constraint (destination required because the original board is not remembered), then a discovery pointer, then a compact list of failure modes. No filler sentences; every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

Covers preconditions, atomicity, error recovery, and input discovery — a strong package for a three-parameter mutation with no output schema. The only omission is what the call returns on success (counts, affected board), which an agent might want for confirmation.

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 both required parameters and the organization-resolution rule are already fully documented in structured fields. The description adds meaningful constraint semantics for asset_tokens (each token must currently be archived) and restates the 1000 cap, but adds nothing about collection_token beyond what the schema 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 and resource — move archived assets out of the Archive into a chosen board — and distinguishes itself from archive_assets and move_assets by naming search_assets with include_archived: true as the discovery path. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the 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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to locate eligible inputs (search_assets with include_archived: true) and warns that the destination board cannot itself be archived. It stops short of stating the inverse routing case — e.g. use move_assets for assets that are not archived — so alternatives are implied rather than fully enumerated.

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