better-bear

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it clarifies that archiving hides notes without deletion and mentions the undo functionality via the 'undo' parameter. This enhances understanding of the tool's behavior, though it could note idempotency or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by clarifying details and usage guidance. Both sentences earn their place by adding value: the first defines archiving, and the second explains the undo parameter. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, behavior, and parameter usage, but lacks details on return values or error cases. With annotations providing safety and idempotency info, and schema covering parameters, the description adds sufficient context, though output behavior is unspecified.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'id' and 'undo' parameters. The description adds some meaning by explaining the effect of the 'undo' parameter ('Unarchive the note instead of archiving'), but this is partially redundant with the schema. No additional syntax or format details are provided, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Archive a Bear note') and resource ('Bear note'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bear_trash_note (deletion) and bear_edit_note (modification). It also explains what archiving means ('hidden from the main list but not deleted'), which differentiates it from deletion or other state changes.

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 clear context on when to use this tool ('Archive a Bear note') and includes an alternative action ('Use 'undo' to unarchive'), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. bear_trash_note for permanent deletion) or mention prerequisites like note existence, leaving some gaps in sibling differentiation.

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