wallabag_archive_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses almost nothing behavioral: no idempotency, no reversibility (an unarchive tool exists), no permission/auth requirements. It does add one useful semantic point — that 'archived' means 'read' in wallabag's model — which keeps it above a 1.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is arguably too terse for a state-mutating tool with no annotations, but as a structural matter it is clean.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is described in the schema. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description omits behavioral context (reversibility, idempotency) that an agent would want before invoking it.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('wallabag entry/article id'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no formatting, lookup, or id-provenance detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource ('Mark a wallabag entry as archived/read') and disambiguates the state change by equating archived with read. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearby sibling wallabag_unarchive_entry, which is the obvious inverse an agent must choose between.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the unarchive alternative for reversing the state. The only signal is the implicit inverse in the tool name.

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