Archive a card

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive (destructiveHint false) and writable (readOnlyHint false), but the description adds critical context: the action is reversible, preserving comments/checklists/history, and explains the server's policy of omitting delete. This goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: definition, behavioral detail, and usage rationale. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it does, why it exists, and that it is reversible. The pointer to unarchive_card completes the context.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter 'card_id' with a clear description, including source hints ('from get_cards or search_cards'). The tool description itself does not add further parameter details, which is acceptable given schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('archive') and resource ('card'), and clearly explains the effect: the card leaves the board view but retains comments, checklists, and history. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'unarchive_card' and notes that no delete tool exists.

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 explicitly states when to use archiving—it is always the correct move because deletion is permanent and unrecoverable. It also highlights the alternative 'unarchive_card' for reversal, providing clear usage context.

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