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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot convey: the operation is reversible, nothing is deleted, and recovery is available via the dashboard URL. That resolves the natural worry triggered by destructiveHint. It still doesn't say what happens to page ordering or whether the link still occupies a slot.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the reversibility guarantee plus a concrete recovery URL. No filler, nothing to cut.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema operation, the description covers the essential behavioral risk (reversibility) and the recovery path. It could be slightly more complete about the effect on page layout/ordering and whether the action is immediate, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema itself already tells the agent to source link_id from get_my_page. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Takes a link off the page by archiving it' tells the agent exactly what happens, and 'archive' implicitly separates it from siblings like add_link, update_link and reorder_links. It stops short of naming which sibling to use when the user actually wants removal instead of archiving, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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?

Usage is implied — use this when a link should leave the page but not be destroyed — and the recoverability note hints at when it is safe to call. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites, when NOT to use it, or which sibling (e.g. update_link) to prefer for other intents.

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