Archive completed tasks older than a set period out of the main board view. Tasks are marked, not deleted, and can be restored later; override the default retention with older_than_days.
把「完成已久」的已完成任务归档出主视图。归档 = 打标记，一条都不删，随时可用 restore_archived 拿回来。平时无需手动调：看板快照会自动巡检，按配置 board.archive_done_after_days（默认 3 天）归档。这里传 older_than_days 可以临时改用另一个保留期。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| older_than_days | No | 完成超过多少天算「已久」，省略则用配置值 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that archiving is a non-destructive mark, nothing is deleted, it is reversible via restore_archived, and that a background sweep normally handles it. It does not state permission requirements or how archived items surface elsewhere, so it is not fully exhaustive.
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?
Four compact clauses, front-loaded with what archiving does and its non-destructive guarantee, then the auto-behavior, then the parameter override. No 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?
For a one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, its safety profile, its normal automatic trigger, the override, and the recovery path — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by naming the config key board.archive_done_after_days, its default of 3 days, and framing the parameter as a temporary per-call override rather than the normal path.
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 (归档/archive) on a specific resource (「完成已久」的已完成任务) and immediately disambiguates it from deletion ('打标记，一条都不删'), naming the counterpart tool restore_archived. An agent can distinguish this from delete_task or list_tasks without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly says manual invocation is usually unnecessary because board_snapshot auto-archives per config, and then states the one condition under which to call it: to temporarily override the retention period via older_than_days. It also routes recovery to restore_archived.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.