Preserve a link again

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explicitly stating that the tool DELETES existing preserved copies first, and warns that if the site is gone, old copies are lost. It also mentions the background worker and queue, providing full transparency about the asynchronous and destructive nature.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first paragraph delivers the key action and warning; the second adds background execution context. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the essential behavior.

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 covers the tool's behavior, parameters, and background execution, but does not specify the return value or format of the confirmation token. For a two-step tool, this is a minor gap. However, given the simplicity and the reference to get_worker_stats, it is largely 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 description adds significant value beyond the schema: for link_id, it clarifies it's the numeric id from search_links, not title or URL. For confirm_token, it explains it's from a previous call and to omit on the first call. This contextualizes the two-step flow perfectly.

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: 'Has Linkwarden archive the page again.' It explains the destructive behavior (deletes existing copies) and distinguishes from siblings like create_link or delete_link_preservations by requiring a confirmation token for the two-step process.

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 implicitly guides when to use the tool: when you want to re-archive a link and accept the risk of losing old copies. It warns about data loss and mentions the background worker and get_worker_stats for queue monitoring. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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