archive_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behavioral traits: the operation is a soft-delete and the page can be restored later. This goes beyond a generic 'archives a page' and provides meaningful context about reversibility, though it does not elaborate on side effects or permissions.

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 two concise sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every word adds value: 'Archive', 'soft-delete', and 'can be restored later' are all meaningful and non-redundant.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the critical behavioral nuance of reversibility. It does not explain return values, but that is less critical given the operation's simplicity. The sibling context (restore_page) further clarifies the workflow.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter page_id with a clear description ('Page UUID to archive'). The tool description does not add extra semantic detail beyond referencing the page, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema already handles parameter meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('Notion page'), with the clarification '(soft-delete)' and 'can be restored later' distinguishing it from destructive deletion tools like delete_block and complementing restore_page. This clearly differentiates from siblings.

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 implies usage for reversible deletion by stating it's a soft-delete and restorable, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over delete_block or reference restore_page as an alternative. Context is present but no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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