list_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose a meaningful trait: cards remain recoverable (soft delete, not destruction). It omits permission/auth requirements, whether the action is idempotent, and confirmation behavior, so disclosure is partial.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the trigger "Use when" up front and zero filler. Efficient, though it could be marginally more informative given the available space.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and recoverability but leaves auth needs, reversibility details beyond "recoverable," and confirmation semantics unexplained, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so both listId and the closed boolean are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that baseline, which is appropriate but not value-adding.

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?

States a specific verb pair (archive/unarchive) and resource (Trello list), so the agent knows it toggles a list's closed state. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_update, which could plausibly also set a closed flag, leaving the archive-vs-update boundary unstated.

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?

"Use when archiving or unarchiving" gives a use context but is close to circular for a tool named list_archive. No exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives like list_update are provided, so selection guidance is only implied.

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