linkding_unarchive_bookmark

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the two-phase write behavior: omitting confirm produces a preview rather than a mutation, which is not captured in the annotations and materially affects how the tool is called.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the endpoint, then the critical dry-run caveat. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler.

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, fully-documented, annotation-covered mutation, the description covers purpose, endpoint, and the one non-obvious behavioral wrinkle (dry-run). It does not describe the response shape, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema, but idempotency and safety are already supplied by annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%: id and confirm are fully documented, including that confirm must be exactly boolean true and that false/string true are rejected. The description's dry-run note reinforces confirm semantics but adds nothing the schema does not already say, so the 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 and resource: 'Move a bookmark out of the archive.' This is precisely the inverse of the sibling linkding_archive_bookmark, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema, and the API path pins the operation further.

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 for a dry-run') gives clear operating context for the confirm parameter, which is genuine usage guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., that this is the counterpart to linkding_archive_bookmark) or exclusions, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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