notes_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Archive (delete)' indicates a destructive operation, but doesn't specify whether archiving is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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 and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'archive' means operationally, whether the action is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. Given the complexity of a deletion/archival operation, more context is needed.

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?

With only one parameter (noteId) and 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool name. However, for a single-parameter tool, the baseline is 4 since the agent can reasonably infer that noteId identifies which note to archive.

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 verb ('Archive') and resource ('a note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like notes_batch_archive or notes_update, which would be important context for an agent choosing between them.

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 like notes_batch_archive or notes_update. With multiple note-related tools available, the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate one for archiving a single note.

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