Forget an archived page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable context by clarifying that the operation only affects the archive index and 'does not touch the workspace itself.' This explains the scope of destruction beyond what annotations convey.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct role: the action, the use case, and a clarifying caveat. No redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the what, when, and scope well. It could mention idempotency or irreversible nature, but the annotations already imply these, so the description is sufficiently 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?

The schema only defines 'url' as a string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description says 'Remove a URL from the archive index,' which directly maps the parameter to the URL being removed. This adds basic semantic grounding but does not explain format, validation, or exact matching requirements.

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 action (remove a URL from the archive index) and the outcome (counts as new again). It distinguishes this from siblings like record_archived by focusing on removal, and adds a specific resource (archive index) that is not confused with the workspace.

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 provides an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when the page it points to was deleted from the workspace.' However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance but is still contextually clear.

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