linkding_archive_bookmark

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, so the description's added value is the two-phase confirm/dry-run pattern and the underlying endpoint. It still doesn't say what archiving changes for the user (e.g., removal from linkding_list_bookmarks, appearance in linkding_list_archived_bookmarks).

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?

Three terse sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the safety mechanism second. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the endpoint and the dry-run gate an agent needs. The main omission is the observable effect of archiving on other read tools.

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% and the confirm parameter already documents the dry-run and rejection of false/string true in detail. The description restates the omit-for-dry-run rule but adds no syntax or semantics the schema lacks, 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?

'Archive a bookmark' names a specific verb and resource, and the endpoint path reinforces exactly what mutation occurs. It doesn't explicitly reference the sibling linkding_unarchive_bookmark, but the verb itself makes the direction of the operation unambiguous.

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 dry-run instruction ('Omit confirm') is a genuine usage rule, but there is no guidance on when to archive versus update or delete a bookmark, and no mention of prerequisites such as the bookmark existing or already being archived.

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