notes_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'archive (delete)' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't specify whether this is reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 that convey the essential action and resource. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 operation with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address what happens after archiving, whether the action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response contains.

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 mention the noteId parameter at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is undocumented. However, since there's only one parameter and its purpose is reasonably inferred from context (noteId for identifying which note to archive), this meets the baseline for minimal viability.

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)') and resource ('a note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like notes_batch_archive or notes_delete (if present), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like notes_batch_archive or notes_update. The description simply states what it does without context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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