Archive or restore a card

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses what archiving hides (board, search, card counts), what is preserved (list, position, checklists, comments, attachments), and that restoring returns the card exactly where it was — i.e., the operation is reversible and non-destructive. It also instructs the agent to tell the user the card was archived rather than deleted, which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot provide.

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 action and its parameter mapping are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by behavior, discoverability, and alternative-selection guidance in descending priority. Despite being multi-sentence, every sentence adds a distinct and actionable fact with 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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must supply the entire behavioral picture, and it does: effect on visibility, data preservation, reversibility, user-facing messaging, recovery path, and sibling preference. Nothing needed to invoke or explain the call correctly 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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates for the non-obvious parameter by defining both values of `archived` (true = archive, false = restore). The `id` parameter is only implicitly covered — the description says 'a card' but never states that id is the card identifier, so a small gap remains.

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 names a specific dual action (archive/restore) on a specific resource (card) and even maps the boolean values: 'Archive (archived: true) or restore (archived: false) a card.' It is instantly distinguishable from siblings like kanbini_delete_card or kanbini_update_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?

It explicitly routes the agent away from an alternative with a condition: 'Prefer this over kanbini_delete_card when the user wants a card "out of the way".' It also points to kanbini_list_archived for retrieval and names the in-app path, so both when-to-use and where-else-to-look are covered.

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