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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive/idempotent/openWorld) by spelling out consequences: all share links stop resolving, the document leaves the shared-document cap, analytics are retained, unarchive can fail with plan_limit, and the confirmation-token flow differs by recipient activity. It even flags untrusted content in results.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and reversible nature, then layered behavioral detail. Every sentence carries useful information for a destructive tool, though the confirmation-flow and untrusted-content sentences add length that could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: side effects, reversibility, failure modes, the two-step confirmation path, and a content-safety warning. Nothing an agent needs to call this destructive tool correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the confirm/confirmationToken flow (a preview returned for this same action, the person's yes) and the archived flag's dual role, though alwaysAllow is not elaborated on.

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?

States a specific verb (archive/unarchive) and resource (document), and immediately disambiguates the two directions via the archived flag. An agent can distinguish it from lnkdrp_delete_doc or lnkdrp_restore_doc without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the operational context clearly: archiving can be undone, unarchiving re-checks the Free cap and may fail with plan_limit, and confirmation is only required when recipients have already engaged with the document. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g. delete_doc vs archive), but the when/when-not conditions are otherwise well covered.

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