framedeck-mcp

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

Adds significant value beyond annotations: while annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description clarifies that this is a 'soft delete' and explicitly states recoverability ('can be restored'), which moderates the 'destructive' annotation and informs the agent about the safety/reversibility of the operation.

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?

Perfectly economical at one sentence with a high-value parenthetical. The action ('Archive a card') is front-loaded, and every word (especially 'soft delete' and 'restored') conveys essential behavioral information. No waste.

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?

Appropriately complete given the tool's simplicity (single parameter) and the richness of structured metadata. The combination of annotations (idempotency, destructiveness) and description (recoverability) fully covers the behavioral contract, though it could optionally mention what happens if the ID is not found.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (the 'id' parameter is fully documented as accepting 'Card ID or title (partial match supported)'), the schema carries the semantic burden. The description does not add additional parameter guidance, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'Archive' is a precise verb, 'card' is the resource, and the parenthetical '(soft delete — can be restored in the UI)' crucially distinguishes this from the sibling 'delete_card' tool by clarifying the recoverable nature of the operation.

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?

Provides clear behavioral context that the operation is reversible ('can be restored in the UI'), which implicitly guides usage toward temporary removal scenarios. However, it does not explicitly name 'delete_card' as the alternative for permanent removal or state 'when to use' vs 'when to avoid'.

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