archive note

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds nuance by explaining the note 'disappears from active views but can be restored,' clarifying that archiving is not permanent destruction. This is useful behavioral context beyond the raw annotations, even if specifics like auth or effects on archives are omitted.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences: 'Archive a Note' states the action directly, and the second explains the consequence. No wasted words, perfectly efficient.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core effect and recoverability. It could explicitly mention restore_note, but 'can be restored' suffices. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 single parameter note_id is not described, and schema coverage is 0%. However, the parameter name and the description 'Archive a Note' make its purpose self-evident, so the lack of compensation is not critical. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type/format, but the obviousness of the parameter warrants a mid-range score.

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 and resource ('Archive a Note') and distinguishes itself from deletion by noting the note 'can be restored.' This clearly separates it from delete_note and clarifies its role among sibling note tools.

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 implies a use case (hiding a note from active views while keeping it recoverable) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like delete_note or complete_note. No explicit 'when to use' or exclusion is provided, leaving the context implied.

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