Jobs-tools-knowledgeBase-archiveNote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that archived notes remain searchable but have lower priority, and that they are preserved. This gives meaningful insight into the post-archive state, though it does not mention reversibility or effects on links.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides key behavioral context. 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 simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its behavioral impact. It communicates the core concept of archiving without needing additional return-value details.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both noteId and reason. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 function: 'Archive note (move to archived status) in Zettelkasten lifecycle.' It specifies the verb (archive), resource (note), and lifecycle context, distinguishing it from siblings like promoteToLongTerm and deleteGuideNote.

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 clear usage context: 'Archives rarely accessed notes while preserving them for future reference.' It also clarifies the continued searchability and lower priority, which helps differentiate from deletion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use this.

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