Unarchive Card

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 states only that the card is reopened, but does not disclose whether the card must already be archived, any side effects, permission requirements, or the shape of the response. This is minimal beyond the tool's name and title.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Unarchive (reopen) a closed Trello card' conveys the action, target, and state in nine words.

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?

For a one-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details: what action is performed and on what. It could add behavioral notes, but the agent has enough to select and call the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents cardId with the description 'The ID of the card to unarchive' at 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond repeating the schema's definition, so it stays at the high-coverage baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'Unarchive' with the resource 'card', and the parenthetical 'reopen a closed Trello card' further clarifies the operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like archive_card and unarchive_list, which target different states or resources.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: on a closed Trello card to reopen it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the card-specific wording makes the target context unambiguous.

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