archive_note

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context: the note becomes permanent and appears on pages. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral insight beyond the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No extraneous information. 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 single-parameter tool, the description explains the transformation and outcome adequately. However, it does not address potential edge cases (e.g., archiving an already permanent note) despite the idempotent hint. Still largely complete.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' (Note UUID). The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Transform' and resource 'QuickNote into a permanent Note'. It explains the archival effect ('archive it') and notes the visibility on contact/tag pages. This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_note (destructive), restore_note (reverse), and pin_note (different action).

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?

Implies usage for archiving QuickNotes, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons. No mention of prerequisites or cases where other tools (e.g., restore_note) are more appropriate. Still, it gives enough context for typical use.

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