notes_batch_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 states the action is to 'archive (delete)', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, reversibility, side effects, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a batch destructive operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('archive (delete) multiple notes') and adds clarifying context ('in a single request') without waste. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 batch destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, errors), parameter semantics, and usage context, leaving the agent under-informed about critical operational aspects.

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 'multiple notes' which implies the 'noteIds' parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add details like ID format, array size limits, or validation rules. Since schema coverage is low, the description partially compensates but leaves significant gaps, warranting a baseline 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 clearly states the action ('archive (delete) multiple notes') and resource ('notes'), with the specific scope of 'in a single request' distinguishing it from individual operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'notes_archive' (single note) or 'notes_batch_update' (batch update vs. archive), missing full sibling distinction.

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 like 'notes_archive' (single note) or 'notes_batch_update' (batch update). It mentions 'multiple notes' but doesn't clarify thresholds, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage context implied at best.

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