archive_branch_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action of archiving without explaining what archiving does to the notes (e.g., whether it moves them, marks them, or is reversible). This is essentially a tautology that adds no behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler words, front-loading the verb and object. It is efficiently structured, but the brevity borders on under-specification given the need for more behavioral context; still, it earns its place by stating the core purpose.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and relatively simple parameters, yet the description does not cover the context needed for correct selection or invocation. It fails to explain what archiving means, when to use it versus siblings, or the consequences of the action. This is a significant completeness gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters described adequately (branchName, archiveDate, projectName). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The phrase 'for a project' weakly mirrors projectName but adds no new insight.

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 uses a specific verb 'archive' with the resource 'branch notes' and adds scope 'for a project'. It clearly states the tool's function, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like clear_branch_note or update_branch_note, though the action is distinct.

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. It does not mention that archiving is a non-destructive alternative to clearing, or when it is preferable to update or read branch notes. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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