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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds. It discloses that archiving is a soft-delete, that archived links stop redirecting, that records and analytics are preserved, that Bearer token authentication is required, and that failures return an auth_error envelope. This covers the operation's side effects, security requirements, and error behavior.

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 tightly organized: an action statement, two bullet-like behavioral consequences, a usage recommendation, auth/error notes, and a reference link. Each sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: action, effect, when to use, authentication requirement, error envelope, and a technical reference. Nothing essential 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?

The schema description for link_id already provides 100% coverage, identifying it as a Link ID and noting that archived links preserve history. The tool description reinforces this by explaining the soft-delete semantics and preservation of analytics, adding behavioral context beyond the schema's bare parameter definition.

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 opens with 'Archive (soft-delete) an affiliate link,' using a specific verb and resource while immediately clarifying the operation type. It distinguishes itself from hard deletion and from siblings like auth.update_link and auth.set_link_visibility by explaining that archived links are hidden from default list views and stop redirecting.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Use this instead of hard deletion to maintain historical data' and explains the behavioral consequences (hidden from lists, stops redirecting, preserves click history/analytics). It lacks an explicit comparison to flood of sibling alternatives such as set_link_visibility or update_link, but the context is sufficient to know when archiving is appropriate.

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