kaiten_archive_card

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the key remaining question is reversibility, and the description answers it by naming the restore path. It does not say whether archiving affects child cards, tags, or members, or whether restoration is time-limited, which keeps it short of a 5. The reversibility claim is consistent with destructiveHint, so no contradiction.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the recovery path follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and a one-parameter mutation tool is largely covered by action plus reversibility. The gaps are minor but real: no note on side effects to related entities and no indication of required permissions for a destructive, open-world operation.

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 single parameter (card_id) is never mentioned in the description. The parameter name and integer constraint are largely self-explanatory, so the practical risk is low, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and gives no hint about which identifier space the id belongs to.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Archive a card') that is clearly distinct from kaiten_restore_card, which it names. It does not explicitly contrast with kaiten_delete_card, so an agent must infer that archiving is the non-permanent alternative to deletion.

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 mention that the card can be restored with kaiten_restore_card implies the archive-vs-delete decision and points to the counterpart tool. However, there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no statement of prerequisites (permissions, card state), and no statement of when archiving is inappropriate.

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