Archive Card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not disclose any side effects, such as whether the card is removed from the board, whether the action is reversible, or whether any confirmation is needed. The description only restates the obvious effect without adding insights about permissions, permanence, or interaction with the board state.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. There is no redundant information, and the sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose. It effectively uses the limited space to convey the essential function.

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 action like archiving a card, the description is minimally viable. However, given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description could provide more context about the card's fate after archiving, the optional boardId behavior, or how this tool fits into the broader Trello workflow. The tool is straightforward, so a complete description might not need much more, but there is room for improvement.

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 input schema covers both parameters (cardId and boardId) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline is 3 due to the high schema coverage. The schema clarifies that boardId is optional and falls back to the active board, which is useful but not in the description.

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 identifies the action (archiving a card) and the resource (a card), using the verb 'send' which is specific enough. It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_list (which archives a list) and move_card (which moves a card to a different list), though not explicitly. The phrase 'on a specific board' hints at the boardId parameter, but the wording 'send to the archive' is slightly less direct than '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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that archive_list should be used for archiving entire lists, nor does it explain the relationship to move_card. No prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts are given.

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