Archive or restore a list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that archived lists and their cards vanish from the board, search and counts, that 'nothing is deleted', and that restore returns the list to its original slot with cards. Missing only authorization/ownership requirements and what the call returns.

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 mode mapping and scope come first, effects second, and the user-facing recovery path last. Every sentence adds information; nothing is redundant with the name or schema.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the side-effect, reversibility, and user-recovery details are thorough. Only the id source and any permission expectations are absent.

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%, so the description must compensate; it fully explains the boolean's meaning and consequences. The 'id' parameter's origin (where to obtain a list id) is left implicit, which is the one remaining gap.

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 opens with a specific verb pair and resource: 'Archive (archived: true) or restore (archived: false) a whole list (column).' The '(column)' gloss removes ambiguity, and 'whole list' distinguishes it from the sibling 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?

It clearly encodes which argument value selects which mode (true=archive, false=restore) and points to kanbini_list_archived as the discovery counterpart. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over kanbini_update_list or kanbini_archive_board, so no explicit exclusions.

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