archive_board

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

The description reveals that archiving hides the board but preserves cards, which is not stated in annotations. Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, all consistent. No contradiction, and the description adds useful safety context beyond annotations.

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 sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second clarifies the effect. Every word earns its place.

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 has an output schema (not shown but present), the description does not need to cover output. It fully explains what the tool does, how to use it (identifier types), and the behavioral outcome. Context signals show only one parameter, so the description is sufficient.

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 description explains that the 'board' parameter can be an _id or exact board name, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's minimal 'a string that will be trimmed'. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description elevates it by specifying the nature of allowed values.

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 clearly states the action (archive a board), the target (Huly board), the identifiers accepted (_id or exact name), and the effect (hides but does not delete cards). It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_board_card.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., archive_board_card, unarchive_board). Implicitly, it's used when the board itself needs to be hidden, but no when-not conditions or direct sibling comparisons are given.

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