close_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is archival and non-destructive ('without deleting it'), which is valuable context. However, it does not mention permissions, whether the board can be reopened, or side effects on the board's contents.

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 and 17 words, with the action stated upfront in 'Close (archive) a board.' The second sentence adds the valuable 'without deleting it' clarification but repeats 'archive,' introducing minor redundancy.

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?

This is a simple mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and non-destructive nature, but lacks behavioral details like permissions, side effects, and the reopen path, which is notable given there are no annotations.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but that is acceptable given the schema already documents each parameter fully.

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 'Close (archive) a board' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies 'without deleting it,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_board and archive_card. It unambiguously identifies the action as archiving a board.

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 archive a board without deleting it,' giving clear context for when to use it—when the goal is archival rather than deletion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like delete_board or reopen_board.

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