Put a document or one of its pages away, or bring it back

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: nothing is deleted, no text changes, archived docs still appear in `docs`/`find` unless `scope` says otherwise, a page stays in place greyed and read-only, and restoring wakes pages individually. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent would otherwise guess wrong.

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?

Behavioral constraints are front-loaded and every sentence carries information, but the closing paragraph about task completion is a lengthier tangent than needed to exclude a sibling. Slightly dense prose with backticked identifiers embedded mid-sentence.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavior — and it covers nearly all of it: reversibility, visibility in search, page-level semantics, and folder filing. It stops short of stating what the call returns or any permission/ownership requirement, which is a modest gap for a mutation 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining what `archived` false means behaviorally and that restoring wakes each page as it was. It adds some meaning for `doc` (opaque id, not title is in the schema) and notes archive items can still be filed, though it does not elaborate on `folder` beyond the schema text.

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 reversible operation on a specific resource: putting a document (or one page) away and bringing it back. It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling `flag_doc` for deletion, so an agent can separate the two without reading either schema.

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 the triggering condition for use, the toggle for the inverse operation (`archived` false), and an explicit alternative for the confusable case («Delete it» is `flag_doc`). It also notes the distinction from task completion, ruling out `tick`/`say_done`.

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