archive_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that archiving is the action and notes the lack of hard delete, but does not describe side effects (e.g., card location change), permission requirements, or reversibility. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences front-loading the purpose. No redundant words or unnecessary details. Every sentence adds 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, output schema exists but not described), the description provides the basic purpose and a note about deletion limitation. However, it lacks details on the outcome of archiving, such as how the card is affected or what the return value is. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The only parameter (card_id) has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what this parameter is for or its expected format. The schema indicates it is a required string, but the description adds no value beyond that.

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?

Description clearly states 'Archive (close) a card', specifying verb and resource. It also hints at the lack of a hard delete operation, which distinguishes it from potential deletion actions, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'update_card' or 'move_card'.

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 description mentions 'Trello has no hard delete via this server', which implies an alternative for permanent removal is not available, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other actions like update or move. No clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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