notes_batch_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 states the tool archives/deletes notes, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, rate limits, error handling for invalid IDs, or response format. The mention of 'single request' hints at efficiency but doesn't clarify batch size limits or atomicity.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information: action, resource, and batch nature. There's no wasted text, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from constraints). It appropriately balances brevity with core clarity.

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 destructive nature, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits critical context: success/error responses, side effects (e.g., if archiving affects related data), idempotency, or authentication requirements. For a batch deletion tool, this leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain 'noteIds' format (e.g., UUIDs), validation rules, or array size constraints. The baseline is 3 because the schema fully defines the parameter structure (array of strings), but the description fails to provide semantic context beyond what's inferable from the tool name.

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 ('multiple notes'), specifying it's a batch operation ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from the singular 'notes_archive' sibling tool by emphasizing batch capability. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch archive tools like 'calls_batch_archive' or 'emails_batch_archive' beyond the resource type.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., note IDs must exist), compare to singular 'notes_archive', or specify use cases like bulk cleanup. Without annotations or context, the agent lacks direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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