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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: nonexistent tags are auto-created, inline #hashtags are stripped, tags with behaviors execute on capture and return an answer, AI credits and the ai permission are consumed for behaviors and word definitions, and folders are created if missing. These are exactly the hidden costs and side effects an agent needs before calling.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence is on-topic, but the single dense paragraph with nested parentheticals (especially the full colour-name list and markup syntax) is heavy and harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, side effects, permissions, cost, and even hints at the result's read_as field. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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 already 100%, but the description still adds real meaning: tag path syntax and auto-creation, hashtag equivalence and stripping, the omit-kind server heuristic, and folder backfill semantics. It does not restate the enum values, which the schema covers.

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 a concrete verb and resource ("Save something new into RemainAI") and enumerates the three things it can be: note, todo, or dictionary word. This cleanly separates it from read_note, update_note, list_notes, and other siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_tags first when the right tag is unclear and to list_todos for existing list tags, and explains the no-tag fallback that reads the user's own filing words. It never states the when-not case (e.g. use update_note to edit an existing note), so it falls just short of a 5.

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