archive_note

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

Given no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context (returns success, raises ValueError for specific cases) but omits details like idempotency, side effects on note visibility, or that the note can be unarchived later.

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 concise, well-structured with Args/Returns/Raises sections, and every sentence adds value 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 nested objects, the description is largely complete, covering purpose, parameter, return, and errors. It could mention that archiving moves the note to an archived state reversible via unarchive_note.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: 'The ID of the note to archive' and explains error conditions for this parameter, compensating well for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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?

Description clearly states 'Archive an active note.' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like unarchive_note and 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?

Description implies when to use (to archive an active note) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like unarchive_note or delete_note, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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