archive_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. 'Archive une note' implies a state change but does not disclose whether archiving is reversible, whether it removes the note from active views, or what side effects it may have.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not earn its place beyond restating the information already present in the tool name.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete. Although an output schema exists, the description still omits key context about the meaning of archiving, how it differs from deleting, and when it should be chosen over sibling tools.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the only parameter, 'path', is not explained in the description. The agent must rely on the parameter name alone; the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Archive une note' clearly identifies the operation and target. However, it does not differentiate this action from closely related siblings like trash_note or delete_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?

There is no guidance about when to use archive_note versus alternatives such as unarchive_note, trash_note, restore_note, or delete_note. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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