unarchive_board_card

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, indicating mutation and potential data impact. The description adds that the card parameter accepts flexible identifiers, but does not elaborate on behavioral traits beyond the unarchive action itself, such as state changes or side effects.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides value.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential identifier format and action. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., card must be archived) or post-conditions, but these are somewhat implied and not critical for a basic unarchive.

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 param descriptions are minimal ('a string that will be trimmed'), but the tool description adds significant detail for the 'card' parameter (accepts _id, CARD-123, bare number, or exact title scoped to board). The 'board' parameter lacks similar elaboration, but overall the description enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool unarchives a board card, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like archive_board_card (opposite action) and delete_board_card (destructive action) by focusing on the reversal of archive.

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 implies the tool is for restoring archived cards, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like archive_board_card or delete_board_card. The context is clear enough for a straightforward action, but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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