notes_batch_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool archives (deletes) multiple notes, indicating a destructive mutation, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether archiving is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, how errors are handled for partial failures, or what the response looks like. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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—a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 destructive batch operation with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects: the effect of archiving (permanent vs. recoverable), error handling, response format, or integration with sibling tools. The simplicity of the input schema (one parameter) doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral and output information.

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 mentions 'multiple notes' which implies the 'noteIds' parameter, but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema shows (an array of strings). With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't explain what note IDs are, their format, or constraints (e.g., maximum array size). It provides marginal value, but the baseline is 3 since the schema fully defines the parameter structure, even without descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Archive (delete) multiple notes') and resource ('notes'), making the purpose evident. It specifies batch operation ('in a single request'), which distinguishes it from single-note operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'notes_archive' (single-note version) or other batch archive tools for different resources.

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. It doesn't mention when batch archiving is preferred over single-note archiving ('notes_archive'), nor does it reference other batch operations like 'notes_batch_create' or 'notes_batch_update'. There's no context about prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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