archive_all_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It simply states the action without mentioning that archiving is destructive/irreversible, any permission requirements, or potential bulk operation limits (e.g., rate limits). This is a significant gap for a bulk mutation tool.

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 two sentences but the second sentence largely repeats the first, adding only the word 'quickly.' It could be condensed to one sentence without losing meaning, but it remains short and clear.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description only states the action and does not explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., valid list ID). For a bulk destructive operation, this is insufficient context.

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%, with listId, fields, and detailLevel all having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already adequately documents the parameters, so this is baseline adequate.

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 clearly states the tool archives all cards in a list, using a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('all cards in a list'). This distinguishes it from sibling archive_card, which archives a single 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 says 'Use this tool to quickly archive all cards in a list,' implying usage for bulk archiving. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as using archive_card for single-card operations.

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