archive_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only clarifies that archiving is not deletion, but omits what archiving actually does (e.g., hides the list, reversibility, effects on cards) and lacks permission or side-effect context.

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 short sentences, immediately states the action and the key qualification. No filler, information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 optional response-control parameters (fields, detailLevel) and no output schema, yet the description does not mention response customization or return behavior. It also lacks detail on the operation's side effects, making it incomplete for confident agent use.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation; thus a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'archive' plus the resource 'list', and explicitly notes the operation is non-destructive ('without deleting it'), which distinguishes it from delete tools and the sibling archive_card. This is clear and specific.

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 phrase 'Use this tool to archive a list without deleting it' implies the intended context (archiving rather than deleting) but does not mention alternatives like unarchive_list or when not to use it. Basic implied guidance, no explicit exclusions.

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