tinyurl_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the internal read-then-write sequence caused by the vendor's domain+alias-only body, states verification of the resulting archived boolean, and names the required token permission (Archive TinyURL). It stops short of describing behavior when the alias doesn't exist or what errors surface.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource before the explanation. The clause on action=toggle partially restates the schema's enum description, a minor redundancy, but otherwise every sentence carries information about behavior the agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description fills most of the gap by explaining the read-first/toggle/verify flow and the permission requirement. It omits what the returned payload looks like beyond the verified archived boolean and how failures (unknown alias) are reported.

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%, and the schema already defines alias format, the three-value action enum with idempotency semantics, and the fixed domain. The description only adds backstory on why toggle vs archive differ at the API level, so it sits at the baseline rather than adding new parameter meaning.

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 names a concrete verb set (toggle, archive, unarchive) applied to a precisely scoped resource (one exact TinyURL) and even names the underlying endpoint PATCH /archive. That distinguishes it cleanly from tinyurl_update, tinyurl_delete, and tinyurl_change_destination without the agent needing to open any 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?

It explains when each action mode applies: archive/unarchive skip the write when already in that state, while toggle always sends one toggle. It does not explicitly route away from siblings (e.g. use tinyurl_update for other field changes), so the when-not-to-use guidance is implied rather than stated.

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