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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses the toggle mechanic, the read-first/compare/no-op behavior that explains why idempotentHint holds, the post-write state check, the non-destructive nature (nothing deleted, restorable), and a concurrency warning. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 WRITE marker and a one-line purpose, then behavior, then constraints. Compact and mostly waste-free, though the trailing GET/PATCH implementation note is arguably redundant for the agent's decision-making.

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?

No output schema is needed for this mutation, and the annotations plus full schema coverage leave little for the description to carry. The description still closes the gaps by explaining idempotency, reversal, and concurrency, so an agent has everything it needs.

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 schema already documents alias, domain, and archived. The description reinforces the archived=true/false meaning but adds no syntax or value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb pairing (archive/restore) and the exact resource (short link), front-loaded with a WRITE marker. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like tinyurl_update_link or tinyurl_change_destination because the archived=true/false semantics define the operation precisely.

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 two use conditions clearly (archive an active link, restore an archived one) and adds a concurrency exclusion (do not run two archive calls for the same link at once). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as update_link, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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