archive_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return shape ({path, title, shape, hash}), explains hash covers body only, and describes the provenance front-matter. This meaningfully discloses behavioral traits beyond what a schema would show. It could mention whether it overwrites or creates new files, and the 'timestamped' wording implies immutable append-style 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?

Two tight paragraphs, no filler. First paragraph states the action and target; second explains return value and hash semantics. Every sentence earns its place with concrete operational detail.

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 write-style tool with 2 params and no annotations, this is reasonably complete: storage target, return shape, and hash semantics are all covered. The 'private' parameter remains a gap, and interaction with watch_diff/watch_scan siblings isn't addressed, but the core behavior is well-documented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains url (page to fetch) indirectly, and 'private' is never mentioned. However, with only 2 params and one being self-evident (url), the coverage gap is modest. The description adds value about storage location and return semantics but leaves 'private' semantically unexplained.

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?

Very specific: 'Fetch a page and save a timestamped markdown archive with provenance front-matter.' Verb+resource+output format are all clear. It distinguishes from siblings (archive_search, fetch_archived) by describing the archiving action and the storage target.

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 explains that it saves to app-data archive or $MDBROWSE_ARCHIVE, giving context on where results land. It explains how to detect content changes via hash comparison, which functions as a when/WOW-to-use pattern for repeated archiving. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over fetch_archived or fetch_page, nor exclusions.

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