Record an archived page

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining that this tool is the mechanism that informs duplicate detection, which is not visible in the readOnlyHint or other annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and while it doesn't detail every side effect, it provides a key behavioral consequence of using the tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core instruction and followed by a concise justification of its importance. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy.

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?

The description provides strong guidance for the primary use case and differentiates from siblings, but it omits explanations for the optional parameters and does not clarify what 'where' refers to. Given the output schema exists, return values are covered, but the parameter vocabulary and edge cases are under-specified for a 4-parameter 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters, but it only references 'a URL' and vaguely 'and where.' It does not explain the optional tags, title, or page_url parameters, leaving significant ambiguity about their meanings and usage.

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 function: to tell Fetchive that a URL has been saved to the workspace. The phrase 'it is the only way duplicate detection learns what exists' distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_duplicate, establishing a unique purpose.

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 explicitly instructs to call this tool 'after every successful save' and declares it 'the only way duplicate detection learns what exists.' This provides a clear when-to-use directive and implicitly states that no alternative tool can replace this function, satisfying the exclusion criterion.

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