write_shared_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destination directory and that notes are accessible across conversations, which is valuable. However, it does not mention whether writing overwrites an existing note with the same title, whether it creates directories, or what the return value is. This leaves key behavioral traits undisclosed for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target directory, and key benefit. There is no filler or repetition, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with two string parameters and no output schema. The description covers the primary context of cross-conversation sharing, which is crucial for an agent deciding to use this tool. It lacks details on overwrite behavior and return values, but the low complexity and complete parameter schema make the description adequate 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% for both parameters (title and content), each with its own description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Write' with a clear resource: 'a shared note to the brain/_shared/ directory'. It also states the purpose of cross-conversation accessibility, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, read, search, or delegate tasks. The action and scope are 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 implies the tool should be used when a note needs to be shared across conversations. It clearly indicates the context ('accessible across all conversations') without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are for reading/searching/delegating, so the intended use case is clear. The absence of explicit alternatives keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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