Archive Card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the card is sent to the archive but does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, whether archived cards can be restored, what permissions are required, or how the operation interacts with the active board context.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, followed by the card-identification mechanism, which is exactly the right order for an agent.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits behavioral details such as reversibility and permission requirements, and it does not reference the active-board context that the schema indicates matters for invocation.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly, including the cardId/cardNumber choice and boardId constraints. The description repeats the identification options but adds no syntax, format, or contextual meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Send a card to the archive.' It clearly distinguishes card archiving from the sibling archive_list operation, and the second sentence specifies the card-identification options without ambiguity.

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 explains how to identify the card but gives no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as needing an active board, even though the schema hints at that constraint.

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