kaiten_archive_card

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the effect is reversible via kaiten_restore_card, which materially changes how an agent should weigh the destructive hint. It adds nothing about side effects on the card's tags/comments/checklists, so it is not a full 5.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the action and its reversible counterpart front-loaded. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 annotations carry the safety profile. For a single-parameter archive tool the description covers the essential fact (restorability); the only remaining gap is explicit archive-vs-delete routing.

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 description says nothing about card_id at all. However, there is exactly one required parameter with a self-evident name and integer type, so ambiguity is minimal; this lands at minimum-viable rather than deficient.

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 ('Archive a card') and names the counterpart operation (kaiten_restore_card), which implicitly separates it from kaiten_delete_card in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting archive vs delete in the text itself.

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?

Mentions the restore path, which implies archiving is the reversible alternative to deletion, but never states when to archive instead of calling kaiten_delete_card or when archiving is inappropriate. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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