card_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses recoverability and non-permanent deletion, but it does not explain permissions, what archiving changes on the board, or what the call returns.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with the usage condition first and the exclusion second. There is no wasted wording.

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 card operation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies the key selection and safety context. The remaining gap is minor: it does not describe side effects such as how the card appears after archiving.

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%, and the schema fully documents cardId formats and the closed=true/false meaning. The description only implies archive versus unarchive and adds no parameter detail 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 states a specific verb and resource: archive or unarchive a card. It also explicitly distinguishes this from permanent deletion, which lets an agent separate it from sibling tools like card_delete.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: use when the user wants to archive or unarchive a card while keeping it recoverable. It also gives an explicit exclusion: do not use for permanent deletion, which clearly routes the agent toward deletion elsewhere.

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