archive_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the non-destructive nature (without deleting) but fails to mention reversibility (unarchive_card), permissions required, or what happens to the card's visibility. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 short and front-loaded, but contains slight redundancy by saying 'Archive a card' and then 'Use this tool to archive a card'—repeating 'archive a card.' Still, it's efficient and under two sentences.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple archive action. However, it lacks context about reversibility, response structure, or side effects, leaving gaps that could be clarified with references to unarchive_card or response controls.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters (cardId, fields, detailLevel) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific action (archive) on a specific resource (card), and explicitly distinguishes it from deletion by saying 'without deleting it.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_card and aligns with unarchive_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?

"Use this tool to archive a card without deleting it" provides clear context on when to use this tool versus deleting a card. It implies that deletion is the alternative but doesn't explicitly name other alternatives or mention when not to use it.

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