quranenc_add_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only indicates the tool performs a submission (mutation) but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens after submission (e.g., persistence, review process).

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, concise sentence. While efficient, it could include a brief note on the submission outcome without compromising conciseness.

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 write operation with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks crucial context such as what the tool returns, whether the submission is immediate, or any error handling. This makes it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'submit a note'; it does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.

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 that the tool submits a correction, suggestion, or note on a translation. It specifies the action ('submit') and the resource ('correction, suggestion, or note on a translation'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that are mostly retrieval-oriented.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include quranenc_translation_aya and others for fetching translations, but the description does not mention that this tool is for providing feedback rather than retrieving data.

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