notes_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Archive (delete)' suggests a destructive operation, but doesn't clarify if this is permanent deletion, soft archival with recovery options, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated data, or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 maximally concise - a single phrase that communicates the core action. There's zero waste or redundancy. The front-loading is perfect since the entire description fits in one glance. Every word earns its place.

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, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical questions: Is the action reversible? What happens to the note? What permissions are needed? What does success/failure look like? The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 description provides no parameter information beyond what's implied by the action. With 0% schema description coverage and one required parameter (noteId), the description doesn't explain what format noteId should be, where to find it, or any constraints. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher than for multi-parameter tools, and the schema at least defines the type as string.

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 action ('Archive (delete)') and resource ('a note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'notes_batch_archive' or 'notes_update' - the parentheses around 'delete' suggest an equivalence but don't clarify if this is permanent deletion versus soft archival.

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. With multiple sibling tools for notes (notes_batch_archive, notes_update, notes_get, etc.), there's no indication of whether this is for single notes versus batches, whether it's reversible, or what prerequisites might exist. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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