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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the basic annotations by stating the default `archived=true` and confirming bulk support. However, it does not clarify the meaning or consequences of the `unsafe` parameter, and the annotations already indicate mutation, so the description provides only moderate transparency.

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 compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately adds the default behavior and bulk capability, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Although the core use case and batch capability are present, the tool has five parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations. Omitting semantics for `unsafe` and `account` means the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently handle all valid invocations or understand side effects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It adds meaning for `archived`'s default and `note_ids`' bulk behavior, but it leaves `unsafe`, `account`, and the exact relationship between `note_id` and `note_ids` unexplained, which is a substantial gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Arquiva ou desarquiva uma nota', naming both the operation and the target resource. It also clarifies the default (`archived=true`) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like keep_trash_note and keep_restore_note, since archiving is a distinct action.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: to archive or unarchive notes. It also signals batch usage via note_ids, which helps the agent decide between single and bulk invocation, though it does not explicitly contrast this with trash/restore or provide exclusion criteria.

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