Archive Card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that archiving means 'close' and that archived cards can be restored in Trello, implying reversibility. However, it does not disclose permissions, idempotency, or behavior when 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a meaningful behavioral note about restoration.

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 two-parameter archive action, the description is mostly adequate and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, it omits edge-case guidance such as handling duplicate card names, and it does not reference the sibling archive_list tool to disambiguate usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only indirectly references the parameters via 'a card on a board.' It does not explain whether names must be exact, how duplicate card names are handled, or any other semantic detail about board_name or card_name.

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 uses a specific verb ('Archive') and a clear resource ('a card on a board'), with the parenthetical '(close)' removing ambiguity. It differentiates from the sibling archive_list by explicitly targeting cards rather than lists.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as archive_list, move_card, or update_card. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to a different sibling tool.

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