close_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that archiving is reversible and reopenable, which is valuable. However, it does not describe side effects on board contents, visibility changes, permissions required, or the nature of the response.

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?

A single concise sentence with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the reversibility caveat is efficiently placed in parentheses.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It names the action, identifies the resource, and clarifies reversibility. It could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with delete_board or mentioning effects on cards/lists, but these are not critical gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; the parameter description is minimal ('24 characters') but present.

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 'Archiver' on the resource 'board Trello', which is specific and distinguishable from destructive operations like delete_board. The parenthetical 'réversible, peut être réouvert' reinforces that this is not permanent, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool to archive a board with the option to reopen it later. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over delete_board or reopen_board, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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