bear-notes-mcp

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains that archived notes are hidden from regular searches but accessible in the Archive section, which clarifies the 'destructiveHint: true' annotation by specifying the nature of the change (movement rather than deletion). It doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs, but with annotations covering safety and idempotency, this is sufficient for a high score.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by effects and usage guidance in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains behavioral outcomes, and the third provides practical instructions, with no wasted words.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (archival action), rich annotations (e.g., destructiveHint), and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, usage, and behavioral effects. It could mention idempotency or open-world aspects hinted in annotations, but the provided information is sufficient for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter. The description adds minimal semantics by referencing bear-search-notes as a source for the ID, but doesn't provide additional details like format or constraints beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Move a note to Bear's archive') and resource ('note'), distinguishing it from siblings like bear-delete-tag or bear-create-note by specifying archival behavior rather than deletion or creation. It explicitly mentions the effect on search visibility and the Archive section, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use bear-search-notes first to get the note ID'), naming a specific alternative tool for prerequisite steps. It implies usage for archiving notes rather than other actions like deletion or modification, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the named alternative suffices for high clarity.

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