notes_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'archive (delete)', implying a destructive operation, but doesn't specify if this is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unclear.

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?

The description is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's no wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral details like permanence, permissions, or error handling, nor does it explain return values or usage context relative to siblings.

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?

The description doesn't explicitly mention parameters, but with only one parameter (noteId) and 0% schema description coverage, it implicitly clarifies that the tool operates on a single note. Since there are zero parameters with descriptions in the schema, the description's focus on a singular note adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 'Archive (delete) a note' clearly states the action (archive/delete) and resource (note), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'notes_batch_archive' or 'notes_delete' (if that existed), nor does it clarify what 'archive' means versus 'delete' in this context.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'notes_batch_archive' for multiple notes and 'notes_delete' (implied by other domains like meetings), but no indication of when to choose this single-note archive over batch operations or other deletion methods.

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