trello_archive_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Archive a list' implies a mutation but doesn't specify if it's reversible, destructive, requires permissions, or has side effects (e.g., archiving cards within). This leaves critical behavioral traits unclear for a tool that likely modifies data.

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 extremely concise at three words, front-loaded with the core action, and has no wasted sentences. It efficiently communicates the basic intent without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool likely performs a mutation (archiving) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like effects, return values, or error conditions, which are essential for an agent to use it correctly in context with sibling tools.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'list_id' clearly documented, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. Since there are no parameters to explain beyond the schema, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description avoids redundancy while the schema handles semantics adequately.

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 'Archive a list' states the action (archive) and resource (list), which provides basic purpose clarity. However, it lacks specificity about what archiving entails (e.g., hides vs. deletes, reversibility) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'trello_delete_board' or 'trello_delete_card', leaving ambiguity about its scope and effects.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing list_id from 'trello_get_board_lists'), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'trello_update_list' for other modifications, 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.