Архивировать карточку

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the resulting state (condition = 2) and that the card is not removed, which is genuine non-destructive context. It says nothing about permissions, whether archiving is reversible/unarchivable, or what happens if the card is already archived.

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 short sentence with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the clarifying clause follows immediately. Nothing to trim.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential effect. It falls short on reversibility and error/already-archived behavior, which an agent would want before calling a state-changing tool.

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?

Only one parameter (card_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for a single well-documented parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Архивирует карточку') and adds the resulting state (condition = 2). The clause 'не удаляя её' implicitly separates it from kaiten_delete_card, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'не удаляя её' hints that this is the non-destructive alternative to deletion, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose archive over delete/update or any prerequisite context. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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