archive_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses non-blocking behavior (<50ms), background async processing, 24-hour dedup semantics, and the exact response fields including is_deduplicated. These are precisely the behavioral traits an agent needs and none are in structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and latency characteristics, then usage rationale, then response fields. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing enumeration of response fields is slightly list-like.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of return fields (task_id, status, url, is_deduplicated) is essential and present. Combined with async and dedup semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single well-documented 'url' parameter, so the schema already carries the validation/normalization detail. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit a URL for archiving to the Internet Archive') and immediately distinguishes the operation's character as non-blocking and asynchronous. This separates it cleanly from siblings like get_archive_status and retry_task without needing to name them.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance ('preserve web page evidence during research... archive early and often') and notes automatic deduplication within 24 hours. It does not explicitly route to alternatives such as archive_and_cite, which appears to be a superset tool, so sibling selection is left partly to inference.

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