alcove_inbox_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses no behavioral traits: what 'archive' entails (e.g., deletion, move), side effects, required permissions, or the relationship between archiving and note creation. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool's name.

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 sentence, which is concise but far too brief given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, dual action). It lacks essential front-loaded details and structural 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?

Despite having 13 parameters, no annotations, no param descriptions, and an output schema, the description provides virtually no contextual information about the workflow, prerequisites, or what the tool returns. It is grossly incomplete.

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%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. With 13 parameters including abstract ones like 'why', 'action', 'validate', the agent has no understanding of their meaning or usage.

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 tool's dual action: archiving an inbox item and writing a knowledge note. It is a specific verb-resource combination, but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like alcove_inbox_archive or alcove_knowledge_add_note.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools performing similar or overlapping actions, the agent receives no context about selecting this tool over others.

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