better-bear

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains what archiving does ('hidden from the main list but not deleted') and mentions the reversible nature via 'undo'. Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent, so the description appropriately supplements rather than contradicts them.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the effect, and the third provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with reversible action), rich annotations (safety profile covered), and full parameter documentation, the description is nearly complete. It lacks details on output (no schema provided) and error cases, but covers purpose, behavior, and usage well enough for effective agent use.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful context: it explains the purpose of the 'undo' parameter ('Unarchive the note instead of archiving'), which clarifies its semantic role beyond the schema's technical description. This elevates it above 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 specific action ('Archive a Bear note') and resource ('Bear note'), and distinguishes it from deletion by explaining that archived notes are 'hidden from the main list but not deleted'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'bear_trash_note' which likely deletes notes.

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 explicit usage guidance: it states when to use this tool (to archive notes), when not to use it (if you want to delete, use 'bear_trash_note' instead), and offers an alternative action ('Use 'undo' to unarchive') within the same tool. This covers both tool selection and parameter usage.

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