archive_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the operation is reversible and can be undone, which is the key behavioral trait distinguishing archive from delete. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a single-parameter archive action, reversibility is the most important behavioral information.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence that states the operation and its most important qualifier. There is no redundancy or 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?

This is a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description provides the essential behavioral context: archiving is reversible. It is slightly thin on when to use versus alternatives, but for the operation's complexity, it is mostly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the cardId parameter is documented in the schema, albeit only as 'Parameter cardId (24 characters)'. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, but it does not need to given the schema covers it.

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 verb ('archive') and a concrete resource ('une carte Trello'), so the operation is immediately identifiable. The parenthetical 'réversible, peut être désarchivée' also distinguishes it from a permanent delete, especially given siblings like delete_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?

The description implies this is a soft-delete operation by noting reversibility, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over delete_card or how it relates to unarchive_card. There is no direct guidance on alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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