Archive a closed work card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the card 'survives' (the archive is reversible via project_card_reopen), which is genuinely new information beyond annotations. It doesn't discuss permission/auth requirements, but given the annotation coverage and that this is a state-change operation, the transparency is decent.

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 crisp sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the action, the second packs the precondition, survivability, and reversibility notes into an efficient caveat clause. Everything 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 (so return format is handled), full schema coverage for 2 params, and clear annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description covers the essential semantics: what it does, which cards qualify, and reversibility. It could mention concurrency/revision implications or permissions, but for a single-item state-change tool this is reasonably 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds value by confirming the id parameter must reference a done/discarded card, aligning with the schema. The expectedRevision parameter is not elaborated in the description, but the schema covers its semantics (concurrency check) thoroughly, so the baseline 3 is exceeded slightly by the id constraint reinforcement.

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 title 'Archive a closed work card' plus description 'Move a closed card to the canonical archive directory' clearly state the verb (archive/move) and resource (closed card). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like project_card_write or project_card_reopen, but the domain-specific 'canonical archive directory' adds clarity. It drops slightly from a 5 because it doesn't name the sibling alternatives for differentiation.

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 states the precondition ('Only done and discarded cards can be archived') and notes the reversible nature via project_card_reopen, giving clear context. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives as the when/not alternatives, but the inversion (reopen undoes) implies the lifecycle placement.

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