Archive/Restore Document (Outline)

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds that archiving is reversible, which is critical behavioral context. It also notes write access requirement. However, it does not explain what happens to an already archived document or the exact side effects.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and additional details (reversible, restore, access requirement) efficiently.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and reversibility but omits any mention of return values or what the tool does if the document is already archived/trashed. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the 'id' parameter (document ID) or explicitly detail the 'action' enum values beyond natural language. The action is partially implied, but the required id is not mentioned.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: archiving a document (reversible) or restoring an archived/trashed one. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like outline_delete_document by noting reversibility.

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 mentions 'Requires write access' as a prerequisite but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like outline_delete_document or outline_move_document. The purpose implies usage, but no explicit when-not or alternative comparisons.

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