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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only but is idempotent and not destructive. The description adds context that nothing is deleted, the line and history stay, and it describes the impact on source presence. This complements the annotations well.

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 concise with three sentences front-loading the main action. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullets) but is efficient and clear.

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 simple action (toggling archived status), the description covers behavior, cautions, and effect on counting. No output schema exists, but the result is implicit. It is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 both parameters with descriptions. The description reinforces the meaning of archived (true takes down, false puts back, omitted takes down) and provides guidance for corroboration_id to use list_corroborations. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's purpose: recording that a page is no longer there or putting it back live. The title also explicitly says 'Take a corroboration down, or put it back live.' This distinguishes it from siblings like create_corroboration or delete_corroboration.

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 advises to only take down after re-reading the address and finding it gone, and explains the effect on presence counting. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like delete_corroboration, but the context and sibling list provide implicit contrast.

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