Archive or restore a board

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

With no annotations present, the description does the heavy lifting: it discloses that nothing is deleted, that the board disappears from the home picker but remains reachable via "Show archived", and that contained cards stop appearing in search. It omits permission/auth requirements and doesn't state whether the operation is idempotent or what happens when archiving an already-archived board.

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?

Three tight sentences: the action and its parameter mapping come first, side effects second, and the sibling-tool caveat last. No filler.

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 simple two-parameter, non-destructive toggle with no output schema, the description covers the state change, reachability of the archived board, search implications, and how to retrieve archived boards. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 0%, so the description must define the parameters — and it explicitly binds `archived: true` to archiving and `archived: false` to restoring, which is the key semantic an agent needs. The `id` parameter is left uncharacterized (though obviously the board identifier).

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?

States a specific verb pair (archive/restore) plus the resource (board), and immediately binds each mode to a parameter value. This is clearly distinguishable from kanbini_update_board, kanbini_archive_list and kanbini_archive_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?

Explains the user-visible consequences of each mode (hidden from home picker, cards drop out of search) and notes that kanbini_list_boards still returns archived boards, which is useful routing context. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over kanbini_update_board or state any preconditions/exclusions.

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