archive_page

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

The description lacks behavioral details beyond 'archive'. It does not explain whether the action is reversible, what happens to the page (e.g., moved to trash), or any side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to disclose key behavioral traits.

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?

While the description is very concise (one sentence), it is under-specified and omits critical information. Conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness; this is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 tool is a mutation action with no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about the archive operation, its effects, and how to undo. It fails to meet the completeness needed for an agent to understand the full scope of the tool.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states the verb 'Archive' and the resource 'page in Notion', making the basic action clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'restore_page' or 'delete_database_entry', which also operate on pages.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'delete_database_entry' or 'move_page'. There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or context in which archiving is appropriate.

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