Archive or restore a workbench only after confirming scope; the action is reversible and leaves tasks, records, transcripts, and project files intact.
Archive or restore a workbench after explicit user confirmation of scope. This is reversible; it never deletes tasks, member records, transcripts or project files and does not stop agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| boardId | Yes | ||
| confirmed | Yes | ||
| expectedRevision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: the operation is reversible, does not delete tasks, member records, transcripts or project files, and does not stop agents. This directly addresses the effects an agent needs to understand before invoking a non-readonly mutation.
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 compact sentences, with the action and confirmation condition front-loaded. Every clause adds useful information about reversibility or non-effects, and there is no filler.
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?
The description does well on safety and reversibility, which is important for this mutation tool. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, it leaves key invocation details missing, particularly expectedRevision semantics and what confirmation must cover.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only indirectly covers action (archive/restore) and confirmed (explicit user confirmation), while boardId and especially expectedRevision are left unexplained, including what revision semantics or mismatch behavior apply.
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 states a specific verb and resource: archive or restore a workbench. This is clear enough to distinguish the tool's core action, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from any sibling tool or resolve the board/workbench terminology.
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?
It gives a clear usage condition: action should occur after explicit user confirmation of scope. It does not state when to choose archive versus restore, nor when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.