archive_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals batch behavior ('entries'), destination ('review area'), and safety/recovery mechanics ('batch rollback manifest', 'Run dry_run first'). It doesn't specify whether original notes are removed or how the manifest is consumed, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action then the mandatory safety step; no filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, an agent lacks the return shape, the exact effect on original notes, and how the rollback manifest is used. The dry-run and manifest notes prevent this from being inadequate, but there are meaningful gaps for a batch mutating operation.

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 coverage is 0% and entries is an opaque object array, so the description's '(note, hash, category)' is the only definition of entries content. It also gives dry_run a purpose. It stops short of specifying required keys or value formats, but it compensates substantially for an empty schema.

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?

States the verb 'Archive', the resource 'notes', and the destination 'review area'; the tuple '(note, hash, category)' defines scope. It is distinct in meaning from move_note, list_archives, and restore_archive, but it does not explicitly name an alternative to prevent confusion.

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?

Gives a clear operational instruction: 'Run dry_run first.' It does not say when to choose archive_notes over move_note or other siblings, nor when not to use it. Selection context must be inferred from the word 'archive'.

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