close_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavior: closing equals archiving, not permanent deletion. However, it does not mention other potential side effects (e.g., impact on cards/lists, reversibility, visibility) or permissions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. Every word earns its place, conveying the action and the key non-deletion caveat without verbosity or 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential nuance (archive vs. delete). It does not explain full lifecycle implications, but given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 single parameter 'board_id' is self-explanatory and adequately specified in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, but for a one-parameter tool with an obvious name, this is acceptable. No additional semantic guidance is needed.

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 clearly states the action ('Close (archive)') and the resource ('a board'). It also adds the critical distinction that this does not permanently delete the board, which separates it from deletion-like operations and clarifies its scope.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to archive/close a board without permanent deletion) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like update_board or archive_list. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, making it adequate but not thorough.

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