Delete the preserved copies of links

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

The annotation declares destructiveHint=true, so the tool is known to be destructive. The description confirms this by stating it removes archives. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible, if it affects other links, or what happens if link_ids include non-existent entries. The description adds context (keeps bookmarks) but does not fully cover all behavioral aspects.

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, each essential. The first sentence defines action and scope, the second adds use case and contrast. No filler, perfectly sized.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral nuance. It is complete enough for an agent to understand how and when to call this tool, though it could mention potential errors (e.g., invalid IDs) to be fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes all parameters in detail (link_ids with constraints and confirm_token as optional). The description does not add new semantic information about the parameters. Score is baseline 3 as per guidelines.

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 verb 'Removes' and the specific resource (archived copies: screenshot, PDF, readable text, single-file HTML) while clarifying what is NOT affected (the bookmarks themselves). This distinguishes it well from siblings like represerve_link and delete_link.

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 contrasts with represerve_link, stating 'does NOT re-archive anything' and directs users to use that tool when copies should be recreated. It also explains the use case ('reclaim disk space'). This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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