notes_archive

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 indicates this is a destructive operation ('Archive (delete)'), which is helpful, but lacks critical details: whether archiving is permanent or reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what the response looks like, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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—a single phrase with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like the permanence of deletion, error conditions, or what happens to associated data. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides (noteId as a required string). With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what noteId represents (e.g., format, source, uniqueness). However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any semantic context reduces it to 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 action ('Archive (delete)') and resource ('a note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like notes_create, notes_update, and notes_get by specifying the destructive archival operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from notes_batch_archive, which handles multiple 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), when to choose notes_batch_archive for multiple notes, or what happens after archiving (e.g., permanent deletion vs. recoverable). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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