Archive Bear Note

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (archiving is reversible but changes state) and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the note's visibility in searches changes (hidden from regular search but visible in Archive). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting 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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and effect. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states the action and effect, second sentence provides workflow guidance. No fluff or redundancy.

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 archival tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains the tool's effect, how to get the required input, and what to expect after execution. No missing information.

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 100% for the single required 'id' parameter, with schema description including sources. The description reinforces that the ID comes from bear-search-notes, adding workflow guidance. While schema already covers the parameter source, the description emphasizes the correct preceding tool, earning a 4.

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 ('Move a note to Bear's archive'), the resource (Bear note), and the effect (no longer in regular searches, found in Archive). The title and name are consistent and clear, distinguishing it from siblings like bear-delete-note or bear-open-note.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use bear-search-notes first to get the note ID, providing a clear prerequisite and workflow guidance. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool and what steps are needed.

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