Move a note into the archive folder to keep your vault tidy without losing content. Preserves notes for later reference.
Move a note into the archive folder. Nothing is ever deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait — that nothing is ever deleted — which is valuable. However, it does not mention required permissions, reversibility, what happens to the original file, or any side effects. For a simple move operation, this is adequate but not rich.
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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded ('Move a note into the archive folder'), and the non-deletion guarantee adds important context without redundancy.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and a key guarantee. It does not explain the path parameter or mention prerequisites or error conditions, which would improve completeness. Given the low complexity, it is mostly sufficient but leaves minor gaps.
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 schema has one required parameter 'path' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not elaborate on the format, scope, or meaning of the path (e.g., absolute vs. relative, file name vs. full path). The description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent uncertain how to specify the path.
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 ('Move'), a resource ('a note'), and a destination ('into the archive folder'). It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from the broader 'move_note' sibling. The added phrase 'Nothing is ever deleted' reinforces the tool's non-destructive purpose.
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 implies usage (you use this when you want to archive a note) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like 'move_note'. There are no exclusions, alternative names, or conditions provided; the guidance is merely inferred from the name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.