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. It indicates this is a destructive operation ('delete'), which is helpful, but doesn't mention whether the archive is reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential information (archive/delete action on a note). Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 minimal parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'archive' means operationally, whether it's permanent or reversible, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. Given the complexity of a destructive operation, more context is needed.

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 mentions no parameters, while the schema has one required parameter (noteId) with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline would be lower, but since there's only one parameter, the agent can reasonably infer it's the note to archive.

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. It distinguishes this tool from other note-related tools like notes_create or notes_update by specifying the destructive action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from notes_batch_archive, which is a sibling tool.

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. There are multiple sibling tools for notes (notes_batch_archive, notes_update, notes_get, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate when this single-note archive operation is preferred over batch operations or other note management tools.

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